Slattsnews

Now, this is definitely a terrorist act:

KANO, Nigeria (AFP) – Islamic police smashed 80,000 bottles of beer in the Nigerian city of Kano on Tuesday to enforce a sharia law ban on consumption of alcohol that exists in much of the country’s north.

News to hand:

Iran’s election comes just a week after one of its senior clerics declared that women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes, a statement that created an international uproar — but little affected their bid to become an international arbiter of women’s rights.

Elected to what, you ask.

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.”

Seems “brown-out” could be the desired status:

On Thursday, Tehran police chief Brig. Gen. Hossien Sajedinia has warned that all women sporting a tan will be arrested and imprisoned because this violates the “spirit of Islamic law.” Thus, any woman that looked like a “walking mannequin” will be punished.

This should kill off any remote chance of Britain’s Labour government getting re-elected. That the party has degenerated to this level is further proof the Old Dart is stuffed.

A Labour minister says his party has been infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain.
The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) — which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state — has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation” of voters.

How long before they try it on here?

Huge headache for the Obama administration.

BOSTON — A little-known Republican upended the balance of power in Washington by winning a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, a result that imperils President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities and augurs trouble for his party in this year’s elections.

Much sookie-laa-laaing over at the Huffington Post from where the blame is being placed on all manner of illogical factors, as interpreted by Chistery at Tim Blair’s:

1) Massachusetts used to be full of enlightened people, now just stupid rednecks who like Palin.
2) They voted for someone that wont help Obama.
3) Dirty liars got in because of their dirty lies.
4) The election may show democracy in action, but because it didn’t go my way, democracy sucks and you get what you deserve (whining continues a while longer).. Voters cut off their noses to spite their face.

Leftie elitists, they’re so misunderstood. Can’t the rubes see that even though they’re headed for the poorhouse, at least under Obama’s guided-from-on-high socialism, they’ll be enlightened along the way.

This commenter at the normally leftwing Washington Post illustrates the voters’ mood:

I am a Democrat who voted for Obama but I did not vote for massive debt, a health care reform bill that is anything but reform, backroom deals to buy the votes of senators, treating our allies Israel, England, Germany, and France as though they were the enemy, refusal to acknowledge that Islamic terrorism is a threat to our country and does exist, a carbon tax energy policy that will cost the middle class billions of dollars in new taxes, and the arrogance, hubris, and attitude of Obama and his diehard supporters that are harming America.
I am glad Scott Brown won and if the liberal Democrats don’t get the message that this country did not want a far left turn when Obama won the election this life long Democrat will never vote for a Democrat again.
Posted by: mjkoch* | January 19, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Now, if someone would just start up a religion with holy days every Friday:

Sydney – Australia’s 250,000 Muslims complained of discrimination Saturday after laws were proposed banning shops from opening at Christmas and Easter to give retail staff more family time.
Islamic Friendship Association head Keysar Trad said all religious holidays should be covered not just some of them.

One aspect of religion that blowhard atheists like Philip Adams never condemn is religious holidays. But then, hypocrisy comes easy to millionaire socialists.

Independent sub-contractors who ignored their better judgment and voted for Rudd are discovering the price of stupidity: Stifling regulation and bullying political correctness. Not to mention political blackmail.

. . . thousands of other small building companies are discovering it won’t be easy for the “little guys” — small bands of tradies, chippies and sparkies — to get a slice of Kevin Rudd’s $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution pie.
The BER was supposed to create local jobs for local people but, in order to work on a BER project, small builders have to commit to a bewildering set of standards and policies.
These include “social inclusion” policies, which mean they have to hire a certain number of women, disabled people, former prisoners, and indigenous apprentices. They also need to commit to an environmental policy, ensuring that whatever work they do won’t damage native grasses, or lead to the extinction of rare birds

Onward marches socialism, trampling the old enemy: individualism and risk-taking. No wonder the Australian left is so accepting of islamic extremists — they’re cast from the same conformist, intolerant mould.

Another week and another example of how Britain is racing to become the Soviet-era Albania of the 21st century:

Prof Tim Lang said people needed to wake up to how much water farmers and food factories use in producing staple goods, particularly meat, coffee and milk, saying the threat to Britain’s food chain from its water footprint is just as great as its carbon footprint.
A return to rationing, though “almost unthinkable” in peace time, cannot be ruled out, he warns. While such direct Government intervention would be a very last resort, indirect “editing” of people’s diets by supermarkets and central Government is essential, he said.

It’s already a nation of soap-dodgers, fergawdzakes! Don’t give them more excuses.

UPDATE:
The Republic of Britistan looms closer:

A campaign by two Muslim governors to give Islam a greater presence in a state school played a key part in forcing a successful head from her job, the High Court found yesterday.

Peter Hitchins asks:

Why did Gordon Brown’s anti-Christian Government ask the Pope here? Is it so that Benedict can give Britain the last rites?

Well, if Bene has to deliver extreme unction, it will be due to the actions of snivelling piles of blowfly fodder like Home Secretary Jaqui Smith.

Smith is best known for an inspired change of terminology: last year she announced that henceforth Muslim terrorism (an unhelpful phrase) would be reclassified as “anti-Islamic activity.” Seriously. The logic being that Muslims blowing stuff up tends not to do much for Islam’s reputation – i.e., it’s an “anti-Islamic activity” in the same sense that Pearl Harbor was an anti-Japanese activity.

Is it any wonder that such a cesspit of a nation now produces actions like this?

British Muslims are providing the Taliban with electronic devices to make roadside bombs for use in attacks against British forces serving in southern Afghanistan, The Telegraph can disclose.

Theodore Dalrymple doesn’t just identify the dishonesty, shallowness and hypocrisy behind most modern public policy, he does it with exquisite style.
The habit of public apology for things for which one bears no personal responsibility changes the whole concept of a virtuous person, from one who exercises the discipline of virtue to one who expresses correct sentiment. The most virtuous person is one who expresses it loudest and to most people. This is a debasement of morality, not a refinement of it. The result is likely to be self-satisfaction and ruthlessness accompanied by unctuous moralising, rather than a determination to behave well.
The effect on some of the recipients of such apologies is likely to be very bad also, for similar though slightly different reasons. Let us take the demand for an apology for the Atlantic slave trade as an example. I doubt whether anyone could be found nowadays who would mount a moral defence of that trade. That it was hideous and cruel beyond all description hardly needs saying, and what does not need saying should not be said, at least not often, for otherwise the lady doth protest too much.
The demand for an apology supposes that there is a clearly definable person, or group of persons, who can be held responsible for the trade, or at the very least to have been the beneficiaries of it. In other words, the world can be neatly divided into historical oppressed and oppressor, victim and perpetrator.
Most historical situations and their consequences are more complex and ambiguous than this simple schema would suggest, and the slave trade is no exception. For medical reasons having to do with relative immunity to malaria, if for no others, the supply of slaves depended crucially on the co-operation of African suppliers who captured slaves for sale. No apology from their descendants is required. The trade was abolished almost entirely through the efforts of white abolitionists. However discontented with their lot present-day American descendants of slaves may be, they are much better off than they would have been had their ancestors not been brought to America. Are they morally obliged, then, to offer thanks to the slave traders who brought their ancestors to America?

In the face of such glaring logic, you have to ask: why do we give control of our public institutions and their far-reaching policies to so many myth-making morons?
And this is not just an elitist concern. Ask your average middle-aged working classer their opinion of racist apologies, manmade global warming myths, islamic appeasement and softly-softly policing and you’ll be swamped with derision.
Yet our policy-influencing classes – the latter-day blessed trinity of academia, politicians and the media – stumble blindly along a path that comes from neither logic or common sense. Fortunately, thanks to the likes of Dalrymple, they’re sharing fewer companions on their journey to nowhere.

Hasn’t much of the mainstream media reaction to Sarah Palin revealed the left’s hypocrisy and bigotry? And ignorance?
Bleeding hearts who forever whine about “inclusion” and “compassion” for minorities suffer amnesia when anyone with opposing attitudes to life and society wins public support.
The ”compassionate” ones are outraged if someone attacks Islamic practices, yet they’ll let loose with savage slurs on evangelical Christians.
They’re forever hinting that the midlands of America are hotbeds of racism – ignoring the many dark complexions at the GOP convention – yet don’t see the double standard in using terms like white trash and rednecks.
They bellyache for years about the “glass ceiling”, yet when someone defiantly breaks through on her own terms, they attack her for her position on the sanctity of life.
They spread vicious lies about Palin’s oldest daughter and younger son, sneer at her provincial background and mock her middle-American values.
One Obama-infatuated New York columnist even criticised, fergawdzakes, her hairstyle.
Oh, and the kids’ names elicited superior snorts, as if inner-urban plonkers aren’t prone to branding their spawn with cringe-makers such as Lucifer (kid you not), BJ and Agatha.
These elitists think they’re intellectually superior, yet ironically they often reveal their ignorance when going the smart-arse against the lesser classes. I bet that sub-editor thought he/she was so very clever with that line today: REDNECKS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
The pejorative redneck applies to white working class men in the US south; working outdoors year-round in the sun-baked states leaves them ruddy below the hair line.
The Palins hail from Alaska where the downside of outdoors toil is more likely frostbite than sunburn.
But that’s a squillion miles away. How the heck could a 21st century metropolitan journalist know that?

UPDATE:
Here’s a handy resource to set straight all the suckers who fall for the Obama camp’s bulltish about Sarah Palin.

Leftwing moonbats fling the word “racist” around so readily it has become devalued. Query the desirability of fundamental islamism in modern society and you’ll be — illogically — branded a racist. Try to discuss something as interesting as why Africans are faster and stronger athletes than their European and Asian cousins, and the subject will be changed for fear of appearing racist. Declare that welfare has been poisoned flour for modern Australian aborigines and the subject will be ignored while co-discussers irrelevantly prattle on about the racism of settlers 150 years ago who allegedly poisoned food given to natives.
Thus, I am reluctant to bandy about the “R” word.
But how else can you describe the proposal by socialist Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls to establish a County Court to deal solely with Aboriginal offenders?
That is correct, a trial court that deals with offenders only of a certain race.
Perhaps the “R” word is accurate . . . but inflammatory. So we’ll call it for what it is . . . the “A” word: Apartheid.
Is there no one on the left who thinks rationally? Or who recognises gross hypocrisy?

Mary Jackson has a soft spot for Boris Johnson.
He’s not perfect, she says, but that’s what makes him endearing.
Importantly, she lists his major qualities as: He is not Ken Livingstone; he’s humble; he’s intelligent and well-educated; he’s fun; and he has some understanding of Islam.
And what’s not to like about someone who makes up his own word — bemerded — to describe the streets of Europe.
Or someone who comes up with cracks like this:
“You won’t catch me doing deals with left-wing dictators,” cried Boris, “which means that Venezuelan slum children are effectively subsidising Transport for London. I say that is completely Caracas!”
An absorbing portrait.

Only bad news sells. That will be the excuse given for reports such as this not getting a widespread run, even though whole forests were devoured to chronicle the situation when all was grim.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in more than four years, figures released by the US military showed on Saturday, but officials said progress was still fragile and reversible.
Iraqi security officials said an offensive against al Qaeda in the northern city of Mosul, which the US military says is the Sunni Islamist group’s last major urban stronghold, had wiped out most of the insurgent network.
Washington’s envoy to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, declared that al Qaeda had never been closer to defeat. The United States says the group is the biggest threat to peace in Iraq and has blamed it for most of Iraq’s deadliest suicide bombings.

Like the lack of evidence to support the manmade global warming theory, the mainstream media must eventually bite the bullet and print the truth about the Iraq turnaround. In the meantime, those who want the facts and not distorted opinion in their news, will continue to eschew old media — particularly “progressive” outlets — in the pursuit of truth.

Andrew Bolt has weighed the consequences — and they could well be dire — and posted on his blog a copy of Dutch MP Geert Wilders anti-Islamist film. Warning: it is graphic and disturbing.
And that’s not just its content; the attitude of some Dutch politicians in trying to ban Wilders’ film represents such snivelling appeasement that Chamberlain was a breast-beating warrior in comparison.

UPDATE:
Liveleak.com, the file sharer that hosted Wilders’ film, has taken it down after threats against staff.

And surprise, surprise, that bastion of freedom and liberty, the United Nations, has condemned the film, accusing Wilders — not extreme Islamists, mind you — of “instilling hatred or incitement to violence”.

Why liberal democracies bother to have anything to do with this misbegotten assembly of totalitarian toerags is beyond me. I wonder if just one of Krudd’s 1000 “best and brightest” will touch on our membership of the useless UN and how we’d be better served by an organisation of democratic states.

Hmmm, could be an interesting prospect. I mean, some will be hell-bent on proving they’re as desirable as 72 virgins.

(IsraelNN.com) The Islamic group “Samuh al-Islam” has begun a campaign to find husbands for the widows of deceased terrorists, according to Omedia. The group describes the campaign as an effort to revive an ancient Islamic custom. The group’s religious leaders point out that Mohammed, who Muslims hail as a prophet, married the widow of a follower who died in battle, despite the fact that she was less attractive than his other wives.

Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP whose film on Islam has fuelled the debate on race in Holland, says he has nothing against Muslims. He just hates Islam.
This brave libertarian says: ‘Islam is not a religion, it’s an ideology’.
He wants an end to mosque building and Muslim immigration.
Demonstrating the love of freedom and equality that spurred thoughtful radicals a generation ago, Wilders says he is inspired by Dutch iconoclasm, Scandinavian insistence on free expression and the right to provoke.
Of course, the dopey Trotskyist Guardian surprises no rationalists with its wildly inaccurate political pigeon-holing, as it brands Wilders rightwing and repeatedly aligns him with European far rightwing movements.
Seems that to the Guardian’s perverted editorial judgement, opposing Islamic extremists’ bashing of homosexuals and subjugation of women is a “far rightwing” position.
What exactly does the Left stand for these days?
We already know that in Australia it stands for the continuation of horrific child abuse in remote communities.
I repeat: it must be embarrassing for anyone with brains and a conscience to line up with the Western Left.

The British Government, to its credit, has wasted no time in shooting down a preposterous suggestion by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that aspects of Islamic (sharia) law should be introduced in the country.
Revealing just how inadequate he is in his role, Williams said on Thursday he believed that the introduction of sharia in Britain was ‘unavoidable.’
It’s fortunate the archbishop wasn’t around in 1939. The Poms would now most probably be goosestepping to swastikas.
Of course, back then institutions like the Anglican Church stood for something other than appeasing every noisy minority group.

Brown’s spokesman said it was the government’s position that Islamic law ‘cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.’

UPDATE:
Perhaps the archbishop thinks sharia law could provide the solution to Britain’s lager lout problem:

TEHRAN — A young Iranian man has been sentenced to hang for repeatedly drinking alcohol which is strictly banned in the Islamic republic, the Etemad newspaper reported on Wednesday.
The 22-year-old, identified only as Mohsen, was handed down the death penalty by a criminal court after being found guilty of drinking alcohol for a fourth time, the daily said.
“The defendant in this case has been sentenced to death and the official notification will be given soon,” it quoted Judge Jalil Jalili as saying.
“According to article 179 of the Islamic penal code, if someone drinks twice and is punished for it on each occasion he should be executed on the third offence,” Jalili said.

Barbarians!

Disturbing news from Britain:
HUNDREDS of British non-Muslims have been recruited by al-Qaeda to wage war against the West, senior security sources warned last night.
As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK, according to one MI5 source.

When leading lights of opposing political parties agree on a military development, the ring of credibility is loud and clear.
This account of recent US military success in Iraq by John McCain and Joe Lieberman is not just great news, it is undeniable.
It’s therefore true. So why isn’t it leading the news pages and taking top spot on the TV news bulletins?

Instead, conditions in that country have been utterly transformed from those of a year ago, as a consequence of the surge. Whereas, a year ago, al-Qa’ida in Iraq was entrenched in Anbar province and Baghdad, now the forces of Islamist extremism are facing their single greatest and most humiliating defeat since the loss of Afghanistan in 2001.
Thanks to the surge, the Sunni Arabs who once constituted the insurgency’s core of support in Iraq have been empowered to rise up against the suicide bombers and fanatics in their midst, prompting Osama bin Laden to call them traitors.
As al-Qa’ida has been beaten back, violence across the country has dropped dramatically.
The number of car bombings, sectarian murders and suicide attacks has been slashed. American casualties have also fallen sharply, decreasing in each of the past four months.

This article has plenty to say about distorted reports from the front.

This piece, on the fragility of western culture in the face of an expanding muslim youth demographic, is vintage Mark Steyn: Forensic, convincingly argued and as always, thoroughly entertaining.

We are witnessing the end of the late 20th- century progressive welfare democracy. Its fiscal bankruptcy is merely a symptom of a more fundamental bankruptcy: its insufficiency as an animating principle for society. The children and grandchildren of those fascists and republicans who waged a bitter civil war for the future of Spain now shrug when a bunch of foreigners blow up their capital. Too sedated even to sue for terms, they capitulate instantly. Over on the other side of the equation, the modern multicultural state is too watery a concept to bind huge numbers of immigrants to the land of their nominal citizenship. So they look elsewhere and find the jihad. The Western Muslim’s pan-Islamic identity is merely the first great cause in a world where globalized pathologies are taking the place of old-school nationalism.

Regardless of where you sit politically, these are points worth discussing and it’s a disgrace that academia and media are not engaging in robust debate on such matters.
It’s ironic that Steyn’s brilliant prose, more frequently than the output of any other rationalist writer, attracts the shallowest of criticism from luvvies corner: he’s repeatedly called an extreme right-winger, a fascist, a nazi, all those desperate slurs from the supposedly clever classes.
Read the piece and then weep at this response:

Four students at Toronto’s Osgoode Hall Law School are accusing Maclean’s magazine of violating their human rights over an article titled The Future Belongs to Islam.
They’ve filed complaints with the federal, Ontario and British Columbia human rights commissions over the October 2006 article.