‘Fed up’ French Muslims mobilize to unseat Sarkozy

April 22, 2012
(Carla Bruni)
“You are my junk.
More deadly than Afghan heroin.
More dangerous than Colombian white (powder),”
she sings, adding:
“My guy, I roll him up and smoke him.”

If Le Penn really cared about France she would cooperate with Sarkozy and keep the Muslim Left out of power.

10% (the magic number)…will it happen here? Is the leftward, free-ride attitude, happening here? Don from Jihadwatch Demography. Enough Muslim voters to topple a president: “‘Fed up’ French Muslims mobilize to unseat Sarkozy” With Francois Hollande as president, Muslims will be able to import even more Muslims and have even higher social benefits — that in turn will attract even more Muslims that can (vote for) vote for even more Socialists. 95 percent of Muslims in France vote for the socialists. The socialists’ strategy is clear: burden your own countries with weak immigrants from a less civilized culture in order to secure your own reelection. Invite people to our part of the world who have many children and are only able to manage few kinds of jobs, and who will therefore always vote for the Left. The Danish elections in September 2011 were decided by only 8,483 votes. With at least a hundred thousand Muslim voters in Denmark, of whom 89.1 percent vote for the Left, it is fair to say that Muslim demography put the Danish socialist government in power. More on the Left’s import of Muslim votes: “Muslim demographics: Pull and push factors”. Before reading the bad news from the Washington Times below, take a look at socialist candidate Francois Hollande’s music video, which Cheradenine Zakalwe from the excellent blog IslamVersusEurope rightfully presents in this way: Socialist Candidate: “Vote for me, Niggas in Paris!” How do you get young non-white people to vote for you when you’re a middle-aged balding white man? François Hollande has the answer. Take a popular song by two famous US rap stars. Film yourself surrounded by black and Arab voters who say ‘big-up’. Change your name to initials only. Get some Final Cut whiz kid to paste it all together with a load of fast-forward and zoom. Set up a YouTube account with the word ‘crew’ in it. And upload. “‘Fed up’ French Muslims mobilize to unseat Sarkozy,” from the Washington Times, April 19: “PARIS | France’s Muslim community is mobilizing voters to reject President Nicolas Sarkozy in Sunday’s election to punish the conservative leader for his anti-immigrant and anti-Islam rhetoric. “[French] Muslims can’t stand it anymore. They are fed up with these debates about national identity, halal meat, the veil or fundamentalism all over the place,” said Francoise Lorcerie, a sociologist with the Institute of Studies on the Arab and Muslim World near Marseille. “The terms [Islam, immigration and fundamentalism] are being used interchangeably, without care, with people being targeted, denigrated and used for [votes].” The debates and rhetoric aren’t new and have been at the heart of French political campaigns for the past decade. Muslims – especially those living in the “banlieues,” France’s poor immigrant suburbs – sometimes have been courted by candidates with promises of jobs and better living conditions, but they mostly have been stigmatized as threats to the French identity, analysts say. The rhetoric escalated last month after Mohammed Merah, a French-born Muslim who claimed to be inspired by al Qaeda, killed seven people in a shooting spree. Mr. Sarkozy, of the conservative Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party, called for tightening immigration because there are “too many foreigners” in France. Marine Le Pen, the presidential candidate of the far-right National Front party, talked about “green fascism” (a reference to the color of Islam) and wondered “how many Mohammed Merahs are arriving on boats and planes each day, filling France with immigrants.” The speeches infuriated French Muslims and reignited the debate over origins and identity. As Europe’s largest Islamic community, French Muslims account for as much as 10 percent of the country’s 65 million people. … Mr. Mechmache says what residents of the banlieues really need are education and jobs, not a fight over Islam: The youth unemployment rate is above 45 percent in some of the neighborhoods. In November, AC Le Feu launched an initiative to warn candidates about addressing the situation in these districts. It is working with Muslim community groups to get out the “Muslim vote” in the banlieues, which have had nonparticipation rates as high as 50 percent in some elections. … Without mentioning any candidate’s name, the association accused some politicians of dividing the nation and “betraying the republican pact” and warned against “those hoping to win or retain power by stoking fear, xenophobia, the rejection of others.” … In April 2007, polls found that French Muslims voted mainly for the Socialist presidential candidate: Segolene Royal won 64 percent of their vote, while Mr. Sarkozy got just 1 percent in the first round and 5 percent in the second. … For now, French Muslims, like a slim majority of their compatriots, seem to prefer Socialist Francois Hollande: He is the clear front-runner in the runoff on May 6, according to polls. “Hollande said he will lower rents and bills. That’s what everybody cares about because our salaries aren’t enough to make ends meet,” said Chaker Alain, 28, a Parisian born to French parents of North African descent. “Besides, when you listen to the right-wing speeches, the way they call immigrants and their religion every name, automatically you lean toward the left.

The Liberal Jewish Eunuch

April 3, 2012

(Sultan Knish)Liberal Jews have become the eunuchs in the modern Byzantiums, trusted to administer the system because they have no interests of their own. When Jewish groups are asked to define Jewish interests they inevitably reel off a series of liberal platitudes about immigration, abortion, tolerance and gay rights. It’s not that Jewish interests don’t exists, it’s that they have been steadily excluded from the dialogue space and liberal policies have been treated as their equivalent. Israel is the last stand. It’s the last Jewish interest that is specifically ethnic and religious, rather than some vague nostrum about Tikkun Olam and what Jewish values have to say about importing HIV positive Peruvians. And it’s no wonder that it’s so fiercely under attack.
The eunuchs can be trusted because they have no families and no children. They have no future and so they have no outside interests. They are contemptible for those reasons, but also useful for those reasons. You can trust a eunuch to see to things without worrying that he will selfishly help his own, because he has no ‘own’, he is an isolate, a dead end, a withered branch. The liberal Jew has the same role and for the same reason. His identity is a transitory thing on the path to integration. He has a future, but not a Jewish future. Like the eunuch, he is a dead branch of the tree.
Everyone knows Jews are clannish. It’s one of the stereotypes, right up there with cheap. But the Jewish eunuch can’t be clannish, not really, because the eunuch has no clan except his own kind and they aren’t much of a worry because eunuchs don’t reproduce. They may form their own groups and chatter on about whatever it is eunuchs care about, but everyone knows they have no future. Wait a few generations and they’ll be gone.
And that is the trouble with Israel, it is much too alive. It is a Jewish country swarming with Jews. It actually calls on ethnic and religious allegiances. It is the last Jewish interest there is. It is the dream muddying the waters of the eunuch’s loyalties. And it has to be destroyed for the liberals eunuchs to keep their place in the bureaucracy of the postmodern borderless state. (MORE)

I usually like to do a cartoon when I see a great Sultan Knish post… I don’t think you want to see me drawing this…. so I’m posting the whole thing. Ouch!

Why Did Sarkozy and Obama ‘Dis’ [Disrespect] Bibi?

November 15, 2011

…Avoid the NOID!…

(Barry Rubin) (h/t Docs Talk) During a conversation when they thought nobody was listening French President Nicolas Sarkozy and U.S. President Barack Obama said nasty things about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A lot of the analysis about what this tells us I think is rather misleading.
Regarding Sarkozy, French-Israel relations have been good and there have not been major problems with Sarkozy. On one hand, Sarkozy has been far friendlier to Israel than his Gaullist and Socialist predecessors. True, he is surrounded by some hostile advisors, including the career staff at the Foreign Ministry, but on the other hand there is a defense and counterterrorism establishment that admires Israel.

Indeed, Sarkozy helped kill the Palestinian unilateral independence effort in the UN Security Council, a major service to Israel. Yet France voted in favor of the Palesstinian entry into the UNESCO organization. Incidentally, Sarkozy has also not been a fan of Obama in the past.
Why suddenly has Sarkozy turned against Netanyahu? I can’t prove it but I think there is evidence for the following scenario. Sarkozy decided that he was going to broker a major deal at the UN, showing that France was a leading great power in the world. (A theme I think you have heard before is a major French goal.) So he went to Netanyahu with a proposal: Israel would accept unilateral independence for Palestine and Sarkozy would get Israel something from the Palestinians (perhaps recognition of a Jewish state?).
Netanyahu played along a bit but, of course, knew that Sarkozy wouldn’t get anything from the Palestinian Authority. Sarkozy’s idea — like that of virtually all the well-intentioned or bad-intentioned, naive or cynical, friendly or hostile to Israel busybodies who think they are going to make peace — just didn’t make real sense.

At any rate, Sarkozy thought he had something from Israel that he didn’t. His UN speech implying he wanted to support unilateral independence was certainly bad from Israel’s standpoin

The deal fell through — it was doomed from the start since the Palestinian Authority wouldn’t compromise — and, of course, he blamed Israel and not the Palestinians.

Hence his fury that Netanyahu was a “liar.”

As for Obama, some have explained his remark about frustrations in dealing with Netanyahu every day as just going along with Sarkozy. Others claimed Obama’s remark was justified. This latter point is absurd.

The truth is that Netanyahu has done everything Obama has asked while the PA has done nothing at all.

If only there was a U.S. president who talked that way. But there’s more, apparently, to be gained by bashing Israel and coddling the PA in words.
Remember two things. First, U.S. policy has taken virtually no material action against Israel in terms of bilateral relations. The hostility is all words. Better nasty words and okay actions than the other way around.
Second, when PA leader Yasir Arafat doomed the Camp David talks in 2000 and turned to massive violence, then President Bill Clinton was livid. He openly blamed Arafat and the PA. Over time, though, this was all forgotten. Clinton today blames Israel for the lack of peace.
Why recent American presidents behave this way would have to be the subject of another article. But you all know the list of factors involved.
An interesting question is this: What could Netanyahu have possibly done to underpin Obama’s anger? There is only one real possible argument:

Netanyahu’s trip to Washington in which he gave Obama a lesson in Middle East politics and made a stirring speech to Congress that made Obama look foolish.

But why did Netanyahu do this? Only because while on the way to Washington he was ambushed by a major Obama speech — which had not been discussed with him beforehand — that badly undercut Israel’s strategic position. The point most cited in the speech was the idea of returning to the 1967 borders but there are worse things in it. Besides the substance, you just don’t present a major new policy critical of an ally’s interests while he’s on the plane to Washington and you haven’t even fully discussed it with him.
I could here provide a list of broken promises from Obama to Israel along with insulting and verbally damaging behavior.
But put that aside. Obama’s administration has endorsed Israel’s deadliest enemy and the most important antisemitic group in the world — the Muslim Brotherhood — coming to power in Egypt. A similar stance is being taken toward Tunisia and Libya; U.S. policy is treating the Islamist regime in Turkey as its closest ally in the Middle East despite that country’s leader making hysterical anti-Israel rants and virtually threatening war on Israel. The Obama administration is also helping Islamists in Syria and doing lots of other dangerous things on a regional level.
In the face of this long list of damage being done by Obama to Israel, he has a lot of nerve to snap about Netanyahu. Meanwhile, we are still being told from certain quarters that Obama is the most pro-Israel president in history, practically Jewish, and we should shut up about any criticism, get down on our knees and vote for him.
A little lesson in diplomacy: the king of the land is the king. Israel must get along with Obama to the best of its ability. It cannot criticize him in public and must be circumspect in discussing even his policies. It must take the course of a university official in a Terry Pratchett book who told his boss: “You’re right, sir, but I can tell you how to be even more right!” Suppose you were to ask an Israeli official what he thinks of Obama and his policies? If completely candid, that person would respond: It doesn’t matter what I think, we have to do our best to get along with him.
Ironically, Obama says that he is ashamed of past U.S. bullying and arrogance, its treatment of smaller countries. Often, however, that only seems to be true regarding countries hostile to the United States. The fact is that Israel’s existence is on the line and Obama is playing with that country’s fate.
I won’t go further here but if I make the mistake of talking in front of a microphone that I think is “off,” I might get caught complaining that we have to deal with Obama every day

all true, but has nothing to do with Sarkozy. Sarko very simply wants to win an election… and his constutuents are Vichy or Muslim. Sarkozy might be ignorant, but his main goal is power. All the backroom conjecture is nothing but conjecture. Interesting, probably true… but no real reason why dogs like to chase cats.

Avigdor Lieberman to France: Send the Foreign Legion to Gaza, Don’t send girls with olive branches

November 15, 2011
Media_httpitelegraphc_seasg(INN) Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Monday that Israel would be happy to lift its blockade on Hamas-run Gaza if France would pull its weight – by sending in the Foreign Legion to keep order.
Foreign Minister Avigdor LiebermanLieberman, known for his candid and colorful mode of expression, was responding to recent criticism from the government of French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
The Foreign Minister said he had raised the idea during talks with his French counterpart Alain Juppe in June.
“I have no problem in lifting the blockade tomorrow as long as there is a force to inspect everything coming into the Gaza Strip and (prevent) terrorist activity,” Lieberman told MPs on Monday.
“Instead of us doing it ourselves, you (can) send the French Foreign Legion!”
A French foreign ministry official confirmed Lieberman’s previous remarks to Alain Juppe to AFP.
“Don’t send girls with olive branches,” Lieberman added Monday, referencing a boatload of French activists who tried to breach Israel’s blockade on Gaza.
The United Nations Palmer Report on the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident concluded Israel’s blockade of Gaza was both “legal and appropriate” as a means of curtailing arms to the Hamas terror organization.
Israeli officials note that the Kerem Shalom crossing to Gaza is never at full capacity despite all requests for aid to Gaza being met.
French and Western criticism of Israel’s arms embargo – predicated on the claim there is a ‘humanitarian crisis’ in Gaza – is unfounded, the officials say.  Bustling Gazan malls and thriving hotels bear this out. The humanitarian problem in Gaza is the wide gap between rich and poor, with the former ignoring the latter.


Avoid the NOID!

November 9, 2011
Obama must be pissing his pants right now. All that work to try and appease his voters and convince the public that he wasn’t Reverend Wright’s boy… down the drain. Curses! …and the best part… is he was plaid (99% sure of it). Sarkozy is trying to get elected with his Joooo hate’n Franks who have an ass fetish for Arabs and particularly Arafat’s former haunts. Those Palestine boys throwing rocks just look so cute to the froggies in Paris is how I figure it. Best way for old Sarko to get some juice into his election campaign is to make it seem like an accident where he is caught attacking the American. aah politics! and poor Obama… he didn’t want this. The best part is it isn’t the first time Obama fell for Sarkozy’s Shenanigan. Does anyone remember the time the press photographers came out and Sarkozy fooled the newly green Obama into staring at a 16 year old girl’s ass? Sarko is so tricky! Obama may be a great speaker (yes with the teleprompter), but he is very slow in the back room and he got plaid. I almost feel bad for the BHO. Maybe Obama might learn who his friends are in the future. I bet you Obama is gritting his teeth tonight.

Congress and the ADL calls on Obama to apologize to Netanyahu [UPDATED]

November 9, 2011

Even the ADL dhimmis are forced to condemn Obama after saying they didn’t want to make Israel a campaign issue:

We are deeply disappointed and saddened by this decidedly un-Presidential exchange between Presidents Sarkozy and Obama.
President Obama’s response to Mr. Sarkozy implies that he agrees with the French leader. In light of the revelations here, we hope that the Obama Administration will do everything it can to reassure Israel that the relationship remains on a sure footing and to reinvigorate the trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which clearly is not what it should be.
What is sad is that we now have to worry to what extent these private views inform foreign policy decisions of the U.S. and France — two singularly important players in the peace process.

[UPDATE]: Bachmann Wants Obama to Apologize to Netanyahu

Congressman Mike Grimm (R-NY) has called on President Obumbler to apologize to Prime Minister Netanyahu:

November 8, 2011
For Immediate Release
Carol Danko 202-225-3371
Rep. Grimm Calls on President Obama to Apologize to Israeli P.M. Netanyahu over G20 Remarks
WASHINGTON, DC – Rep. Michael G. Grimm (R,C-NY) issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s remarks overheard at the G20 summit criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu:
“I find President Obama’s criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu highly offensive and call on him to issue a formal apology on behalf of the American people. Whether the microphones are on or off, the message to our allies in Israel should always remain the same: ‘We stand with you.’
“As an American, I understand the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship to our own national security as well as to the peace and security of the Middle East. As a member of Congress, I will do all I can to ensure our alliance remains strong.
“President Obama’s comments are disgraceful and inappropriate coming from someone who holds the highest office in the United States. They provide a poor and inaccurate reflection of the American people he was elected to represent, and they must be rescinded.”
Rep. Michael Grimm is a co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus.

(Israel Matzav) Grimm has accurately characterized Obama’s remarks. But I don’t want a self-serving apology from Obama. I want Netanyahu to issue a statement thanking the President for finally letting out in the open how he really feels about Netanyahu and about Israel. We would also be deeply grateful if he could release the original recording so that it can be used in ads in the 2012 campaign.

Sarkozy Tells Obama, ‘Netanyahu is a Liar’

November 8, 2011

Congress calls on Obama to apologize!

The French – in True Form! it was no mistake. this was orchestrated. can’t prove it, but it would make sense. The French have always known how to play politics dirty and to air their vile Anti-Semitic views in a way that they can apologize for is par for the general course of how the French deal and have always dealt with Jews. I just love the way Sarkozy thinks he can get away with this kind of elitist game because he has relatives that were Jews. it would be a good way for Sarkozy to convince his Palestinian sympathizing franks that he was in their corner. my guess is Sarkozy set Obama up… and I’m glad he did. I’m also shocked to see that Obama fell for it. So… now you know Obama’s position. Are there any liberal Jews out there who are stupid enough to vote for him? you betcha! Liberal Jews still love a President who hates Israel.

(h/t Sarah Leah Lawent / israelnationalnews.com) French President Nicolas Sarkozy is in a diplomatic knot after telling President Barack Obama, in what he thought was a private call, “Netanyahu is a liar.” The president also made a negative remark about the Prime Minister.
He and President Obama were talking in a private room after a press conference at the G20 summit in Cannes last week.
They did not know that their microphones were open and that reporters outside still were wearing their headphones they had used to hear simultaneous translations of President Obama’s remarks in public.
The French Web site Arret sur Images published the conversation.
President Obama complained to Sarkozy for not telling the United States ahead of time it would vote in favor of admitting the Palestinian Authority to UNESCO, a move the Obama administration opposed.
The conversation flowed to the subject of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

when you shoot an Armenian think of Obama

Sarkozy: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.”
Obama: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”
The president then suggested to Sarkozy that he try to convince PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to lay low in its attempt to win membership in the United Nations.
The French website apparently was the only media outlet to publish the remarks because other journalists who overheard the remarks – unintended for publication – agreed not to report the conversation.

Bibi should take off a glove and slap Sarkozy in the face… and Obama shows his true colors. His issue is that he has to deal with those lowly Jews. Oh… such a burden! He much prefers his polite court Jews. He acts like he did the Jews such a favor by pulling funding for UNESCO, but that is B.S.. Obama was forced to do that by U.S. law… and it was just such a burden. Obama would much rather hug a big Turk at G20 like Erdogan.

(EOZ) This is a big story, and others are all over it. But there is another troubling aspect to the story that is being overlooked.
The conversation happened on November 3rd. The story was only reported yesterday, November 7th, and then only because a French media watchdog website broke the story.
Which means that none of the journalists who were there reported about this explosive story.
Why not?

The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments. A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments.
A member of the media confirmed Monday that “there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue.”
He added that while it was annoying to have to refrain from publishing the information, the journalists are subject to precise rules of conduct.

Ah, so it was an ethical thing. Because of “sensitivity.”
While I cannot find anything in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics to preclude reporting on a story like this, I guess we should trust their judgment that some open mic stories are fair game and others are way over the line. (There was another time that Obama kept his mic open and journalists reported on what he said, but he didn’t say anything embarrassing.)
Under the same circumstances, these ethical journalists would no doubt have kept quiet about similarly indiscreet comments from, say, George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, and they would have happily signed an agreement muzzling them from reporting them.
And there would have been no news reports about how outrageous it is for world leaders to demand that something embarrassing to them be kept quiet.