Sunday, 29 June 2008
THE 'VOLUNTARY' HIJAB
This horrific story comes to us via www.littlegreenfootballs.com.
Read it and see our future if we do not successfully fight fundamentalist
Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 8:33:39 am
Remember this horrifying story the next time an
Islamic advocacy group tries to tell you that wearing the hijab is a
completely voluntary choice for Muslim women: Murder Charge for Brother Whose
Sister Shed Scarf.
TORONTO The brother of a Canadian
teenager who was slain in what friends described as a family dispute over a
Muslim head scarf was charged with murder, becoming the second family member
accused in her death, police said Friday.
Aqsa Parvez, 16, of Pakistani origin, was
strangled in December at her Mississauga, Ontario, home. Waqas Parvez, 27, who
had faced obstruction allegations in his sisters death, was charged Thursday
with first-degree murder.
Their father Muhammad Parvez, 57, was charged
with first-degree murder earlier this month. He had been a suspect since
shortly after her death.
Police would not disclose details of any new
evidence that prompted the Fridays charges or what impact they would have on
the case against the father. But spokeswoman Samantha Nulle said investigators
were checking if other people had been involved in the death.
Police have refused to confirm the killing was
over the scarf, and Muhammed Parvezs lawyer, Joseph Ciraco, has said that
more than just cultural issues played a role. He did not return calls for
But friends said her death came during a family
feud over her refusal to wear the traditional Muslim
Take a good look. Because if these lunatics take over, western
civilization will be gone and this is what it will be replaced with.
Remember that the next time someone smugly assures you there is no point to
fighting al qaeda and its likeminded counterparts because, after all, it's only
happening over there, not here.
Is Google, the single most used search engine there is, intentionally working
on behalf of Barack Obama's presidential bid?
Well, Warner Todd Huston of www.newsbusters.org seems to think
so. And with good reason too.
Here, read it for yourself:
Google Shuts Down Anti-Obama
Sites on its Blogger Platform
It looks like Google has officially joined
the Barack Obama campaign and decided that its contribution would be to shut
down any blog on the Google owned Blogspot.com blogging system that has an
anti-Obama message. Yes, it sure seems that Google has begun to go through its
many thousands of blogs to lock out the owners of anti-Obama blogs so that the
noObama message is effectively squelched. Thus far, Google has terminated the
access by blog owners to 7 such sites and the list may be growing. Boy, it must
be nice for Barack Obama to have an ally powerful enough to silence his
opponents like that!
It isn't just conservative sites that Google's
Blogger platform is eliminating. For instance, www.comealongway.blogspot.com has
been frozen and this one is a Hillary supporting site. The operator of Come a
Long Way has a mirror site off the
Blogspot platform and has today posted this notice:
I used to have a happy internet home on Blogger:
www.comealongway.blogspot.com. Then on Wednesday night, June 25, I received
the following e-mail:
Dear Blogger user,
This is a message from the Blogger team.
Your blog, at http://comealongway.blogspot.com/,
has been identified as a potential spam blog. You will not be able to publish
posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam
The Blogger Team
It turns out that there is an interesting pattern
where it concerns the blogs that Google's Blogspot team have summarily locked
down on their service. They all belong to the Just
Say No Deal coalition, a group of blogs
that are standing against the Obama campaign. It seems the largest portion of
these blogs are Hillary supporting blogs, too.
All I can say is, WOW! If Google is willing to
abuse its power like this even against fellow leftists, what does it plan
against conservatives, the folks Google hates even more!?
Here is a list of the Blogspot blogs that have
been frozen by Google thus far:
I've heard rumblings about Google's political censorship before. I've
never written about them because, I reasoned, it was possible that
the incidents were isolated -- and for all I knew there might have been
similar incidents among pro-Obama sites as well.
But this is too blatant to ignore. And if it is what it appears to be,
Google's actions are despicable.
Who are these people? How dare they censor anyone's ability to see all
sides of an issue? What belief system do they subscribe to that makes them
think it is ok to do this? Would they like that belief system to be used
against them as they are using it against opponents of their candidate?
How much do you think robert mugabe would love what Google is
doing? He certainly would recognize it.
JUSTICE KENNEDY AS GOD
What is the function of a United States Supreme Court justice? To apply
the constitution to legal matters or create it?
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has emerged as the "tie-breaker" between the
so-called liberal and conservative wings, seems to have decided on
creationism. And he appears to be reveling in his newfound power.
Here are the particulars, courtesy of www.powerlineblog.com writer Scott
June 29, 2008
Kennedy's Song of Himself
From his perch on the Supreme Court, Justice
Anthony Kennedy sings a song of himself. He specializes in grandiloquent
assertions that are long on begged questions and pronouncements of the ipse
dixit variety. Here are a few highlights from past terms of the
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (joint
opinion with Justices O'Connor and Souter), reaffirming the "essential holding"
of Roe on the unconstitutionality of laws restricting the right of
abortion: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of
existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
Lawrence v. Texas, on the
unconstitutionality of sodomy laws: "Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds.
Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief,
expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of
the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions...."
Roper v. Simmons, on the
unconsitutionality of juvenile capital punishmetn: "It is proper that we
acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the
juvenile death penalty."
This term Justice Kennedy added a few more
Boumediene v. Bush, extending the
right of habeas corpus to Guananamo detainees: "The laws and Constitution are
designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and
security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the
framework of the law."
Kennedy v. Louisiana, on the
unconstitutionality of capital punishment for child rape: "In most cases justice
is not better served by terminating the life of the perpetrator rather than
confining him and preserving the possibility that he and the system will find
ways to allow him to understand the enormity of his offense. Difficulties in
administering the penalty to ensure against its arbitrary and capricious
application require adherence to a rule reserving its use, at this stage of
evolving standards and in cases of crimes against individuals, for crimes
take the life of the victim."
In today's New York Times Linda Greenhouse confers
the Times's customary recognition on those who rewrite the Constitution in a
leftward direction: "In a complicated term, Kennedy left boldest
At least two justices, both decidedly on the liberal side (Stevens and
Ginsburg), will almost certainly be replaced by the next President.
The good news is that this effectively will end Kennedy's reign as
The big question is which way voters intend for this court to go. Do
they want Supreme Court rulings to interpret the constitution or to
legislate it (which, itself, is unconstitutional)?
We'll find out in November, won't we?
BARACK OBAMA: POLITICIAN
Here is a short article from Ginger Adams Otis which appears in today's New
York Post. It details what Otis calls "flip-flops". Personally, I
think of them as very carefully worded "readjustments":
OBAMA THE CANDIDATE OF 'CHANGE MY
By GINGER ADAMS OTIS
Last updated: 4:14 am
It's back and forth for Barack
The candidate of change has changed some of his
own positions in recent weeks, raising the risk he'll be labeled a flip-flopper
on hot-button issues that look as if they will play a central role in the
First it was his about-face on public financing.
Last week, Obama insisted "I never said that I was definitely going to be in the
But his statement that he would "aggressively
pursue" a public-financing deal with the GOP was widely reported when he made it
at the start of the primary season.
Obama blamed a "broken" system and rivals who are
"masters at gaming" it for his sudden turn in direction - not the enormous
advantage he'll have over Republican front-runner John
McCain in fund-raising.
Next up was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act - a bill that would protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for
cooperating with the federal effort to eavesdrop on terrorism suspects. The
bill's provision for "retroactive immunity" raised hackles among Democrats in
Last year, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said:
"Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive
As recently as February, while campaigning in the
Maryland and Virginia primaries, the Illinois senator said he refused "to let
President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and
Fast-forward to June 20: Obama's far-left base was
shocked to hear the candidate announce his support of new FISA bill because of
the "legitimate threats we face."
Even his pledge to "carefully monitor the program"
from the White House didn't mollify many of his outraged liberal backers,
including MoveOn.org, an Internet group that has done a lot of fund-raising for
Obama's campaign staff has denied he is moving to
the political center in a bid to steal votes from McCain.
But Obama's carefully nuanced reaction to
Thursday's Supreme Court decision striking down a 32-year-old ban on handguns in
Washington, DC, seemed designed to split the controversial issue down the
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment
protects the right of individuals to bear arms," Obama said after the ruling,
"But I also identify with the need for
crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues
our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures."
His waffling set off a fusillade of press releases
from McCain's camp. "Does [Obama] believe that the DC handgun ban was
constitutional or unconstitutional? We can't tell, and [he] won't say," McCain
spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
Obama offered up another carefully worded response
earlier in the week when he sided with conservative Supreme Court justices who
opposed a ban on executing child rapists.
"I have said repeatedly that I think that the
death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most
egregious of crimes," Obama said after the decision. But back in 1996, he had
said that capital punishment "does little to deter crime."
Are you at all surprised by this? Did you actually think that Saint
Barack was above it? If so, shame on you.
Never forget that Barack Obama is a politician. A politician straight
from the Chicago political machine. And, because that is what he is,
expect more "flip-flops", "readjustments" or whatever word you
prefer. Because I assure you they are coming.
OUR UNBIASED MEDIA: EXAMPLE #43,782 (OR SO IT SEEMS)
Here is another example of our "unbiased" media, courtesy of www.patterico.com. Enjoy:
Barack Obama is under hostile fire
for changing his position on the D.C. gun ban.
Oh, Im sorry. He didnt change his
position, apparently. He reworded a clumsy statement.
statement, which his campaign is now running away from, was pretty categorical: Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional. Yet, Kurtz
says, the newspapers arent calling him to task:
But even though the earlier Obama
quote and the inartful comment have been bouncing around the Net for 24
hours, Im not seeing any reference to them in the morning papers. Most do
what the New York Times did: Mr. Obama, who like Mr. McCain has been on
record as supporting the individual-rights view, said the ruling would
provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.
Add the L.A.
Times to the list. In David Savages piece on the Heller
decision, he allowed Obama to
pretend he has always supported the decision, which found unconstitutional the
very ban Obamas campaign had declared constitutional:
On the presidential campaign trail,
Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama were supportive of the
. . . .
For his part, Obama drew a somewhat
different lesson from the courts decision. He said it endorsed both gun
rights and reasonable regulation.
I have always believed that the
Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to bear arms, but I also
identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children
from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective
safety measures, he said.
I know what works in Chicago may not
work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like
closing the gun-show loophole and improving our background-check system, so
that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or
Wouldnt it have
been helpful to tell readers that Obamas campaign said the D.C. law was
Yes, that would have
been helpful . . . to the truth.
But not to
that appears to be the editors calculus for deciding what appears in the
UPDATE: In a
about the Obama move to the center, the editors once again allow Obama to act as
though he has always been in favor of the result in Heller:
Obamas reaction to another Supreme
Court ruling, which struck down a gun ban in Washington, D.C., stood in
contrast to that of many local political leaders and was more tempered than
that of many liberals. Whereas his hometown mayor, Richard M. Daley of
Chicago, and Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton sharply criticized the
court decision, Obama was more welcoming. He said the ruling reinforces that
if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear
arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
The best they do to
undercut this notion is to say that McCains campaign said Obama was unable to
give a clear account of whether he viewed the Washington gun ban as
constitutional and claim that Obama has given mixed signals on the issue. How
about saying that his campaign flatly declared the ban constitutional? Theres
nothing mixed about that signal . . .
UPDATE x2: Is this a
mixed signal, or a flip-flop?
But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them what they are:
TRYING TO BE FAIR ABOUT OLBERMANN-O'REILLY
In a way, I sympathize with Brian Lowry of Variety, I really do.
He tries so hard to prevent his animosity towards Fox News Channel from
overtaking him when he reports on the "feud" between keith olbermann and Bill
O'Reilly. Sometimes he succeeds, sometimes he doesn't. Mostly, he
Here is his article. See for yourself (the bold print is mine):
Olbermann-O'Reilly feud spreads
Parent companies embroiled in grudge
After recapping the five-year-old
feud that has spilled over to other assets of their respective
employers GE and News Corp., the gossip site Gawker cheerily noted: "The real
winners, as always: us!"
Indeed, anyone with a taste for mud wrestling or a
pissing match has to enjoy the back-and-forth that has sprung from MSNBC host Olbermann's fateful decision to "punch up" at O'Reilly, Fox News' top-rated personality and his time-period rival. As for
whether viewers or something so quaint as journalistic standards are "winning"
in the eye-poking Three Stooges act that has ensued -- maybe not so much.
The convoluted affair has begun to resemble
"Weapons of Mass
Distraction," an HBO satire written by
Larry Gelbart, in which two dueling media moguls bring their various
holdings to bear in an escalating war to ruin each other. Yet what passed for
satirical farce in 1997 seems almost restrained by comparison now.
For those who have somehow ignored this
food fight, Olbermann started it by regularly jabbing at O'Reilly and naming him
the "Worst Person in the World," a nightly segment on his MSNBC talker.
Thin-skinned in his best days, O'Reilly
has grown especially sensitive to criticism (or as he's prone to call
it, "vicious personal attacks," emanating from "vile left-wing smear sites")
since the embarrassment of having a sexual-harassment suit filed against him in
2004. That irritation has rather transparently led him to retaliate against NBC
higher-ups, including NBC News and even parent General Electric, going so far as to have a producer
ambush GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, stretching to accuse him of shady dealings with
Iran and, this week, of personally despoiling the Hudson River.
All of this has been fodder for Olbermann, who has
gone public with claims that O'Reilly and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes have threatened retaliation if NBC doesn't rein him in.
News Corp.'s assault, whether coordinated
or not, is now happening. The company's New York
Post Page Six column has
joined the fray with several unflattering items about Olbermann. Those rumors
are then parroted by Fox News' dimwitted morning show, "Fox & Friends,"
creating a circular echo chamber.
Olbermann responded, of course, by preemptively
lashing out against the Post on air, calling Page Six "entirely disreputable"
and crowning Richard
Johnson and Paula Froelich, at separate moments, as the "Worst Person." Nor has
Rupert Murdoch -- who Olbermann impersonates by affecting a snarling
pirate voice -- escaped his wrath.
Murdoch was recently quoted noting that he fired
Olbermann from Fox Sports several years ago, saying, "He's crazy." For her part,
Froelich told Gawker that Olbermann is "as infantile as he is narcissistic."
Whichever side you're on, there's surely plenty of
narcissism to go around here -- and it raises a few troubling issues for both.
Critics have long muttered about Murdoch -- more
than any other mogul -- openly using his corporate assets to buttress each other
and lash out at his foes. Even if it's not an orchestrated campaign -- as
opposed to like-minded foot soldiers simply knowing what the boss wants --
the collaboration by Fox News and the Post in this particular
endeavor has a bilious odor and doesn't provide much comfort to nervous
journalists seeking reassurance that Murdoch won't lead his newest toy, the
Journal, stumbling down a similar
NBC News, meanwhile, risks allowing its
talk-driven personalities -- the mother's milk of cable, where loud and
inexpensive is the formula -- to eclipse what little solid journalism the news
division still generates. And while it was initially amusing watching Olbermann
playfully try to nudge O'Reilly off the deep end, there's a significant
difference between that and self-indulgently using his forum as a pulpit to bash
enemies, which actually makes him more like his Fox counterpart than he would
care to admit.
To borrow a phrase from his sports days, there really is such a thing as too
Tellingly, Gelbart's movie incorporates a fictional blue-collar family who
continue vegetating in front of the TV even as their lives become collateral
damage in the moguls' war.
One is tempted to say "Grow up" and leave it at that, but the combatants
should be cautious against becoming too embroiled in this private skirmish.
Because whatever blows they land, both might look up between rounds to find that
while the other guy is bloodied, the bored spectators have finally opted to do
their vegetating elsewhere.
First off, let's dispense with this "feud" business. The word
does not fit. A feud is when two people go at it against each other.
But this "feud" has been a decidedly one-way affair.
What happened was that keith olbermann, whose ratings were a small
fraction of O'Reilly's, decided to attack O'Reilly as personally
and as viciously as he could get away with. The idea, apparently, was
that if he could draw O'Reilly into a juvenile food-fight it would create
an aura of equality between the two - which would obviously help olbermann's far
And the ploy may have worked to some extent; after five years,
O'Reilly still more than doubles olbermann's viewing audience but used to
triple and quadruple it. (Of course it could also be that after almost a
decade of dominance, O'Reilly's show is just winding down a bit in the normal
course of things).
O'Reilly, for his part, has (to my knowledge) never
mentioned keith olbermann's name throughout this nonstop assault. I assume he avoids doing
so to deprive olbermann of getting the one-on-one fight he so desperately
wants. Instead, O'Reilly has gone after NBC and MSNBC in general,
accusing them of having no journalistic standards - an accusation that is
hard to dispute under the circumstances.
Frankly, allowing unbelievably childish, unprofessional behavior like that of
olbermann, and his groupie Dan Abrams (who used to know better), makes NBC and
MSNBC exactly what O'Reilly accuses them of being.
But read those emboldened passages again and see which side is taking the
real beating from Brian Lowry. Hint: It ain't NBC.
From the look if it, If Lowry was stuck between the
professional and personal. Professionally, he was writing a story about keith
olbermann's pathetic behavior and how it was allowed to continue all this time by
NBC/MSNBC. But to leave it at that would require allowing Fox News Channel
to be the victim. And, from a personal vantage point, that clearly
did not sit well with Lowry.
So Fox had to be an equal participant in a "feud" it did not start. To this end
Lowry attacked Fox in something like a half-dozen ways (O'Reilly's "thin
skin", the "dimwitted" morning news team, Murdoch's use of the Post, etc.). This appears
to have liberated Lowry to be able to go after olbermann at all.
I wonder how the Lowry article would have looked if it were Bill
O'Reilly with the low ratings personally and viciously attacking keith
Actually, maybe I don't wonder about that at all. Maybe I already
know the answer.