Sunday, June 29, 2008

Put down of the century..

Quite a bit has been written in the Internet about this absolutely perfect example of the venom and hatred from the Left, but I think we are missing acknowledgeing the put down of the century.

DELAHUNT: Was waterboarding one of them?

ADDINGTON: That's what I'm answering, because I know where you're headed. As I indicated to the chairman at the beginning of this thing, I'm not in a position to talk about particular techniques, whether they are or aren't used or could or couldn't be used or their legal status.

And the reasons I would give for that, if you'll look at, I think, Exhibit 9, the president's speech of September 6, 2006, explains why he doesn't talk about what particular techniques...

DELAHUNT: Oh, I can understand why he doesn't talk about it.

ADDINGTON: But you've got to communicate with Al Qaeda. I can't talk to you. Al Qaeda may watch "C-SPAN."

DELAHUNT: Right. Well, I'm sure they are watching and I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. .

ADDINGTON: I'm sure you're pleased.

DELAHUNT: Given your penchant for being unobtrusive.

Take a bow Mr. Addington. Your wit and intelligence shine like a beacon in that utter display of ignorance, hatred and politics by the Left.

Outside of the fact that the New York Times

is in the tank for Hussein, you would have to wonder why the actions of a 19 year old would rate a 1000 or so word article.

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.

“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

William Katz over at Urgent Agenda accurately notes:

How chic, how stylish, how adolescent.

Further along in the article...

...when her father saw her new online moniker, he was incredulous.

“He actually thought I was going to convert to Islam,” Ms. Nordling said.

Worse, Mr. Nordling, she has joined Husseinism. For which there is no known cure.

In the interest of Science, can you tell us when she first lost the ability to reason and think logically??

But you may take solace that it is nothing you have done, but resides in the family genes.

Ms. Nordling’s uncle liked the idea so much that he joined the same Facebook group that she had

Great Britain just can't surrender - redux

I have received three comments regarding this post that I thought worth using as a separate post.

Anonymous said...


London School of Islamics is an educational Trust. Its aim is to makeBritish public, institutions and media aware of the needs and demands of the
Muslim community in the field of education and possible solutions.

Slough Islamic school Trust Slough had a seminar on Muslim education and...

Stops and then continues in the following comment.


There are four state schools in Glasgow with 90% Muslim children. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools.

From what I have read regarding charter schools in the US I can't disagree. Schools are driven, to an extent, by the parents of the children attending them. A 90% Muslim population results in a school teaching, if not "religion" then certainly Muslim culture and "values."

The problem, of course, is that if assimilation is to occur, then the culture and values that should be taught is British. Is that happening? Perhaps the following article answers the question.

The following may or may not be from the above writer(s).

Anonymous said...

From The Sunday Times
June 29, 2008

Learning to be British and Muslim

In a controversial report, Cristina Odone argues that traditional Muslim schools are the best means of keeping Islamic girls in education – and preventing extremism
It’s 3pm and the girls at Madani high school in Leicester are trooping out of the gates. They wear white scarves over dark blue djellabas – a shapeless coat worn over trousers. No sign of the boys: they don’t leave for another half an hour.

Boys and girls operate on a different timetable, carefully calibrated to keep the sexes segregated. The architecture at Madani high conspires to do the same: there is a girls’ wing and, in mirror image, a boys’ wing – the two separated by an elegant Arabic-style courtyard with a fountain.

Segregation of the sexes is crucial to the traditional Muslim families who send their children to this state-funded school. Once girls reach puberty, their honour has to be jealously protected, and exposure to the opposite sex limited. To shield them from the drugs, sex and violence that mar British playground culture, traditional Muslim parents will often simply pull their daughters out of nonsegregated schools.

“Each year, hundreds of Muslim girls disappear from the state system,” acknowledges Idris Mears, an educationist and fundraiser for the Association of Muslim Schools UK.

“The drugs, sex and rock’n’roll scene is not an option for Muslim girls,” says Humera Khan, co-founder of Al-Nisa, which offers a wide variety of faith-based services to the Muslim community. “So there is a huge pressure to marry them off early or send them home.”

The parliamentary home affairs committee recently collected statistics on the number of children “not in suitable education” in local authorities with large Muslim populations: 385 in Manchester, 294 in Leicester, 250 in Birmingham. According to Mears, most of them are girls.

In the US if you pull your child out of school the government will come after you. Evidently that is not the case in Great Britain. By not demanding that the children receive a traditional secular education the government is surrendering to some in the Muslim population. That is no way to defend a culture and change the values of the first generation of immigrants.

How, then, are Muslim girls to be properly educated so that they have a chance of becoming self-confident members of British society? Madani high is one of a small number of Muslim state schools that fuse cultural tradition with a full education under the national curriculum.

State Muslim faith schools give traditional parents who cannot afford private schools the confidence to keep their daughters in school. They raise the chances of Muslim girls going on to higher education. And they give boys as well as girls a sense of belonging to this country, its institutions and values. There are not enough of these schools, however. Although central government claims it wants to provide British Muslim children with a culturally acceptable – but socially empowering – form of education, it is not putting its money where its mouth is. Far from “fast-tracking” Muslim state schools, it is dragging its feet: it took Mohammed Mukadam, head of Madani high, five years to obtain state funding.

Mukadam, who has a daughter of his own, told me he believes passionately in education as the best route to get girls “out of the kitchen and into university”. But he also respects the feelings of those parents who don’t want their children to lose their religious identity or cultural legacy. Muslim state schools, he says, are the solution; traditional Muslim parents feel comfortable keeping their daughters at a school where they can learn to be “British and Muslim”.

As part of the state-school sector, Madani and the six other Muslim schools that receive government funding must pass Ofsted inspections. All seven schools do well in league tables; and, crucially, the proportion of girls in Muslim faith schools who go on to higher education is more than twice as high as in secular state schools.

Mukadam also ran Leicester Islamic academy, one of the oldest independent Muslim schools in Britain. When he started out there, “not one girl went on to higher education”. From Madani high school, “more than 95%” now do so.

Traditional Muslims do not worry only about their daughters. Many are also wary of keeping their sons in state education. Differences can surface in a mixed gym class or an arts lesson in which they are asked to draw a human body. An ICM poll of British Muslims in 2004 showed that nearly half wanted their children to attend Muslim schools. But, as so few maintained Muslim schools exist, the great majority of the 500,000 Muslim school-age children in England and Wales have to attend secular state education.

Their parents also worry about the Islamophobia that, since the September 11 and July 7 bombings, can creep even into primary schools.

“Everywhere they turn,” says Mears, former head of the Association of Muslim Schools, “children find stereotypes of the Muslim.”

This is a difficult subject, and I am sure troublesome for parents. But since 9/11 Great Britain has had three instances in Muslims were involved in terrorist activities and/or plots. Such things will create stereotypes.

Madani is the perfect vehicle for fighting that stereotype. The building is spanking-new (construction finished last year) and dazzlingly high-tech, with interactive white boards and sophisticated IT equipment in most classrooms. A huge gym caters for basketball and badminton. The grounds are free of litter, the walls of graffiti; and when visitors are guided through the school, the children greet them with the traditional “Salaam alei-kum” (Peace be upon you).

Despite the scarves, the djellabas, the beards and the skullcaps, Madani has its feet firmly planted in British culture: a pink bra stuck on a bulletin board highlights a Breast Awareness campaign.

That has nothing to do with culture, but merely a medical one. Remember the school is segregated.

In one room, a group of girls is waiting to begin extra studies in the school’s own madrasah (supplemental religious school). The take-up is not big but Mukadam is not surprised: traditionally, a madrasah is attached to a mosque and it will take some time before the more devout Muslim families regard a layman’s teaching to be the equal of an imam’s.

So? This is still religious instruction.

Currently, the 700 or so madrasahs in Britain are not inspected by Ofsted, and this has raised fears of child abuse and extremist indoctrination – both in the Muslim community and outside it. However, spokesmen for the Muslim community are wary of criticising the imams who run these schools – their spiritual influence remains enormous in the community.

Mukadam says he has found himself acting as ambassador to the local imams, making the case for girls’ education. “I appealed to the imams: ‘Look, divorce is out there, in high numbers. We must educate our daughters so that they can stand on their own two feet always.”

He dismisses claims that Muslim schools are divisive. Madani’s 570 students are taught that “they’re Muslims, they’re British, and there’s no conflict between the two”. When their faith is treated as a force for good rather than a problem, he feels, students develop a strong sense of identity and self-esteem.

In the end, there is conflict because of the influence of Sharia law. And it is not going away until religion is removed from the schools. And even then it will linger for a generation of two.

“It is not the school that offers proper teaching of Islam which proves a training ground for terrorism, but the one where Islam is misunderstood or misinterpreted,” says Taj Hargey, who runs the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford.

Hargey this year launched a supplementary school – he won’t call it a madrasah because of the negative connotations – where children are taught the syllabus plus religious education.

“We highlight the passages in the Koran that talk about tolerance and pluralism; reinterpret the passages that we believe have been twisted out of their real meaning,” he says.

Mr. Hargey's point seems to be that there are passages in the Koran that are used by radicals to inflame, and that his answer is to teach Islam in a different manner.

That is a nice thought, but what it means is that at some point in time the student may be caught between Mr. Hargey's teaching and the teaching of a radical teacher. The outcome then will depend on many things in the life of the student as well as the talent and abilities of the radical teacher. Remember that the latest terrorist activities were carried out by second generation of thoroughly middle class Muslims.

I seems to me that the answer would be to teach the students the traditional values of the West. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, democratic values, etc. I see it as an inoculation against the ravings of radicals who want to infect the minds of young men and launch them on suicide attacks against innocent men, women and children.

To that end these "new" schools add nothing. Let the student see all sides and decide for themselves which offers them the best future.

Sadly, I don't see Great Britain having the courage to do that. Even worse, I see America following dumbly the same path that brough Great Britain to this point.

Parties Defined

You may have seen this, I haven't.

My thanks to Mammy O for sending it.

The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and so is his wife Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.

The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.

Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become 'adverse parties' of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform, or real hope in America. Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.