How Honest of a Cross-Section Is "All-American Muslim?"

Lowe's has now decided that they would pull their advertising from the show "All-American Muslim" on The Learning Channel. The Florida Family Association asked that sponsors pull their ads for the show. Why did Lowe's comply with the request, you ask? A Lowe's representative gave this reason:

The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.

By making this statement, Michelle Goldberg says in The Daily Beast, it proves that Lowe's "agrees with the idea that Muslims shouldn't be depicted as anything other than terrorists." Now, most of her readers at this point are crying "Harumph!" and have set firmly in place the idea that Lowe's is a racist and hatemongering company. Such is the power of fanatacism.

Other readers, however, might be left to wonder how she is able to write so well when she clearly cannot read. Lowe's does not take issue with the fact that Muslims are portrayed as "ordinary folks." They state quite clearly that they disagree with the fact that the show profiles only those Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding more devout Muslims. A minor point, I guess, but Lowe's neither denied the existence of ordinary Muslims, nor did they say that the show should not include them. But hey, when your agenda is to stir the pot, why get hung up on truth?

Americans have reason to take issue with "All-American Muslim," and it's not because it portrays everyday, peaceful Muslims. As Robert Spencer clarifies:

In reality, All-American-Muslim purports to be fighting "Islamophobia." That is a claim that the show makes about itself in the beginning of the very first episode. Yet it then goes on to depict Muslims who by their own account aren't observant, and so not reading the texts and teachings that Islamic jihadists use to justify violence -- and so they're not the kind of people who would have given rise to any suspicion of Muslims in the first place. If All-American Muslim had said it was fighting "Islamophobia" and then shown pious, devout Muslims teaching other Muslims that the interpretation of Islam of al-Qaeda and other jihadists was all wrong, we might have had something useful. If they'd shown Muslims fighting against terror, it might have been inspiring.

And if they'd simply have left "Islamophobia" out of it and shown people from a Muslim background living their lives, it might have been an enjoyable show without pretending to deal with larger political and societal issues.

Of course, I disagree with Mr. Spencer that "it might have been an enjoyable show" without the underlying agenda to "fight Islamophobia." "Normal" people are not on reality television, because "normal" people are not fun to watch. Reality stars are crab-fisherman, alligator wranglers, epically dysfunctional housewives, and Snookis.

We all know that some Muslims are "ordinary folks." But they're not any more fun to watch that "ordinary" Christians or Jews. The producers of the show believe it will be watched by people ignorant, yet curious about Islam. The show seeks to give these viewers an incredibly biased and whitewashed impression by showing practioners of Islam that do not necessarily reflect the lifestyle and beliefs of a large number of American Muslims. And that's precisely why people take issue with the show- it dishonestly presents these "ordinary" Muslims as an honest cross-section of American Muslims.

And not only is the show not a an honest cross-section of American Muslims, it's not even an honest cross-section of Muslims in Michigan.

Let's try looking at this study, conducted by The Institute for Policy and Social Understanding, an Islamic advocacy group. In it, you will find an interesting trend. 81% of Muslims in Detroit, Michigan, are in favor of the application of Sharia law in Muslim lands. Yes- 81%.

Now, what does this tell you? Well, it shows that a lot of Muslims think Sharia law is a good thing. Now I will not discount the fact that there are a lot of Muslims, like those in this show, that are are less fundamentally observant of Islamic doctrine and probably don't know what the hell Sharia law is all about. But I guarantee you, that a lot of them are not only observant but devout, go to mosque regularly, and know what Sharia is all about and believe in Islamic hegemony. And Sharia is anything but "All-American."

All we're asking is that if you are going to claim to be showing a holistic picture of Muslims in America, be honest. If you really want people to "learn," do not dishonestly whitewash truth with fiction just to advance a PC agenda.

William Sullivan

UPDATE: Not all the characters depicted in "All-American Muslim" are everday, peaceful Muslims.  Even in The Learning Channel's attempt to whitewash the truth, some of it seeps out. Husham Alhusayni is depicted prevalently as the religious backbone of the families.  The problem?  He openly supports terrorism and the terrorist organization of Hezbollah.  No threat there, though, right?  Read more, written by former Palestinian terrorist Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack, here.

For the Heroes of Oahu, the Trumpets Will Not Fade

"Their tenacity helped define the Greatest Generation and their valor fortified all who served during World War II. As a nation, we look to December 7, 1941, to draw strength from the example set by these patriots and to honor all who have sacrificed for our freedoms."

These are the words of President Barack Obama, commemorating and honoring the heroes of that fateful day that saw the beginning of a conflict against the most ardent and determined enemy America has ever faced: the empire of Japan.

Today, we look back in reverence at the sacrifice that, once made in moments of unnatural bravery, has endured for the generations that followed, granting Americans life's most precious gift- freedom.  We bear witness to these final years where the remaining survivors of the greatest conflict the world has ever known can be personally thanked for their sacrifice.  My grandfather, William Jackson Sullivan, a hero of the European theatre in WWII and a man after whom I am named, left this world peacefully this year, serving as a reminder of the great honor we have had in knowing such valiant men who risked all to ensure that others could be free.  Such men deserve our undying reverence.

And on this day, in speaking to a group of surviving veterans of the attack on Dec. 7th, 1941, Barack Obama's words (though I don't often agree with him) are entirely appropriate.

William Jackson Sullivan II

The Mystery of Rick Perry and Jihad

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller (who could be called Islamophobes or anti-jihadists, depending on your persepective) have been very critical of Rick Perry's association with the Aga Khan Foundation, which "represents Ismaili Muslims, who follow a moderate, peaceful interpretation of Islam." Rick Perry had made a deal with the Aga Khan to "help Texas teachers create classroom lesson plans about Islam." Online conservative magazine American Thinker, where I often contribute, has been host to a series of arguments surrounding this issue. First, Pamela Geller wrote an indictment of Perry for his associations. Then, Aymenn Jawadd al-Tamimi responded with an article titled "Smearing Perry on Jihad."  Geller responded in kind with an article titled, "Smearing Geller on Perry."  The exchange was rather interesting, but perhaps even more notable is the chord struck with readers, as the subject opened a rift between the magazine's conservative commenters: some found it a divisive distraction by a jihad-junkie, while others found it to be a relevant topic of conversation.

I was among the latter.

Then, Robert Spencer authored his own piece indicting not only Perry's associations with men like Grover Norquist, but particularly challenged blogger David Stein in his piece titled "Rick Perry's Jihad Problem."   Spencer asserted that David Stein's blog is obscure and that he is spreading falsehoods.  Stein retorts this morning with a scathing attack against Spencer titled "Rick Perry and Sharia, and Robert Spencer," touting his credentials and again defending Perry's actions as innocent and not tantamount to a subversive effort to introduce Sharia to Texas schools.

It would appear that Stein was misrepresented, as he appears to have more credibility than Spencer gives him. And I could not follow into a rabbit hole where Rick Perry is willfully enabling any "stealth jihad" efforts.  But there is a question that I would ask the readers of Political Palaver to consider, however.

From the article:

“In 2008, Perry inked a deal with the Aga Khan Foundation to create the Muslim Histories and Culture Project (MHCP), the goal of which was to help Texas teachers create classroom lesson plans about Islam.”

Is this so incredibly innocent, as Stein suggests? Is this not a cause for alarm? Imagine the outcry if there was to be a detailed lesson plan built on the premise of educating children of the tenets of Christianity. “Separation of church and state!” they’d cry. Yet when educating our youth about misunderstood Islam, why is this all okay? Stein argues that it is voluntary… and from the educators’ perspective, sure, maybe it is. But for parents and children, it is not at all voluntary. I remember quite a ruckus being raised because a Sugarland, TX school had thought it prudent to hold an “Islam 101” mandatory seminar to educate all its students about Islam. Of course, it would be the PC approved version of Islam- no misogynistic overtones, no torturous penalties for infidelity, no divine call to jihad, etc.

I still take issue with this, and the fact that Perry has helped to enable it, as all Americans should. Providing our children with whitewashed PC history is not education- it’s indoctrination. Islam should be discussed as Christianity is discussed in classrooms: A guy named Jesus of Nazareth lived, was crucified by the Romans, and after His followers suffered hundreds of years of political persecution, the religion came to be a mainstay in the historical landscape. Islam should be taught appropriately- Muhammad lived, raised armies to conquer Arabia, and within 100 years his followers spread the faith by the sword- conquering, subjugating, and/or converting other cultures, making it a mainstay in the historical landscape.

So sure, let's talk about how Christianity helped shape the Inquisition, or Manifest Destiny that negatively impacted Native Americans.  But if we are to be honest in educating our children, shouldn’t we be discussing, at the very least, how Islam helps to shape modern jihad, rather than lying to them by denying the association?

William Sullivan

**Authors' note:  I expressed this opinion more succinctly on the website.  If offered a rebuttal, I will provide updates.

If At First You Dont Agree, Eliminate The Opposition

David Hillis, a professor of biology at the University of Texas, was recently going through the list of charities that are approved for state employee donations when one group evidently separated itself from all the rest. This Dallas-based nonprofit group, according to the Austin American-Statesman, is the Institute for Creation Research.  According to it's site, the Institute for Creation Research believes "Science strongly supports the Bible’s authority and accuracy” and charitable donations fund research into the subject.  Upon learning of this outrage, Hillis garnered the support of many of his fellow University of Texas intellectual elite and demanded that the charity be removed from the list when the oversight committee, known as the State Policy Committee, meets this Friday.


In a quote given to The Statesman, Hillis states, "The Institute for Creation Research is an anti-science organization.  They work to undermine the mission of the university and of science in general, and especially the science that is the very basis for health and human services. How could such an organization possibly be listed as a charitable organization to be supported by state employees?"


Now if the donations made to the institute were mandatory withdrawls from the University of Texas' employee's paychecks, Hillis might just have a point.  However this is far from the case.  The State Employee Charitable Campaign is a system in which all state employees have the option of donating to 1524 different charities of their choosing, if they choose to donate at all.  The campaign simplifies donating by allowing the option of drafting the donations directly from the employees pay.  Participation is not mandatory, and participants can pick and choose which charities on the list they wish to donate to.


So when Hillis claims that the Institute for Creation might try to undermine the university (specifically his department), he disregards the possible wishes of the other full-time state employees in every line of work, which number more than 284,000.  Donating to the institute is merely an option, but it is an option that opposes Hillis' life work and this is unacceptable.  


His technical argument is that the charity in no way promotes health and human services, but as the website texaswatchdog.org reports the list is filled with charities in which the health and human services angle is shaky at best.  Charities include PETA, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Herbal Medicine Institute, Vegan Outreach and according to the website even "something called Population Connection, working to stabilize population growth to “achieve a sustainable balance of people”.  Evidently Hillis has no opposition to any of these groups or how they promote health and human services. 


It all boils down to Hillis wanting to restrict the choice of over 284,000 people over an opposing theory which he deems to be garbage. Because, after all, any person of higher learning knows that professors, such as himself, have explained every aspect of the creation of life and man without missing a beat.  Henceforth, any research into opposing views is completely unnecessary and Hillis is just saving poor uneducated souls from donating their money as they see fit.  Evidently in all of his research, he has discovered that the human brain has not evolved enough to make it's own decisions.  


This is not, and should not be an argument for or against evolution or creationism, as it should not be about how anyone views a specific charities' world views.  It is about personal choice and people like Hillis who would restrict a person's abilities to give their money to any charitable organization that they deem worthy.


Calvin Parker

Adam Carolla on the Politics of Envy and the Shame-Driven Angst of the Occupiers

The problem reasonable Americans have had in addressing the Occupy Wall Street crowd has stemmed from our propensity to be just that: reasonable. How do you have a rational conversation with someone who is decrying the evils of capitalism while copiously taking in its fruits in the form of iPhones and double-tall Starbucks lattes? What do you say to a a girl that wonders why her $96K degree in Hispanic transgender gay and lesbian studies didn't land her a meaningful job? Would it be possible to explain how a free market works when a person understands so little about money that he feels entitled to as much as he demands for having done nothing? And is there any possible hope of reasoning with a person whose idea of meaningful expression is publically defecating on a police car or a flag?

You can't reason with them. You just sit back and thank God that only a small demographic shares their disease. And you hope they go away. And when they don't, you're left to scratch your head at why the media chooses to put 100 agitators claiming "99%" status in the spotlight. You sit in awe as certain politicians lend such a farcical movement support.

But now it's clear that we can't reason with them, and we can't just ignore them.  Civility goes nowhere when you're dealing with the uncivil. These Occupiers have the worldly understanding of children, and their methods are often sub-human.  And they should be spoken to as such.

Adam Carolla does just that in the clip below.  Be forewarned- it is chock-full of foul language, politically incorrect assessments, and all the other things you've been thinking for years about our coddling, "everyone gets a trophy for trying" society that has placed a premium on mediocrity- while discouraging and demonizing exceptionalism.

William Sullivan

Dan Quixote: A Glimpse of an Heroic TSA Agent

A caller named Dan called in to the Michael Berry radio show to take issue with Michael's past criticism of the agents of the Transportation Security Administration. The caller is allegedly a former radio host and attorney who has since become a proud agent of the TSA, and for his sacrifice, he demands the respect often reserved for our armed forces, police, and firefighters. He's saving lives- putting his life on the line, he says, and he's tired of people not giving him the due credit. After all, when we're running out, "he's running in."

Not sure how much truth is in that. I can't imagine that the two week training he cites gave him much practice in disassembling or defusing a bomb, so if a bomb is found in a piece of luggage in a particular airport terminal, I doubt that Dan will be rushing in to save the day.

When we pass by Dan at the security checkpoint, we see a man with plastic gloves and a badge sifting through people's personal belongings and familiarly touching strangers. Dan, however, sees himself as heroic guardian who valiantly keeps us safe. And as such, out of gratitude, the passengers he protects should understand any perceived rudeness to be a result of exhaustion and the stress that comes with "putting your life on the line."

Personally, I have yet to encounter a particularly rude TSA agent. Sure, I've been taken aside for enhanced screening and had my belongings taken away, but in these instances, the agents were almost apologetic in doing so. So I've always respected the fact that TSA agents can put up with so many irritable travelers, and continue doing that job day in, day out. I'm just not sure that I have the patience to do that job, and if I did, I cannot imagine I'd be happy. Of course, I have similar respect for restaurant waitstaff, so Dan should probably not expect me to go out of my way to praise him for tilting at windmills.

I would certainly much prefer a system of efficient profiling to a wasteful government agency that gropes passengers willy-nilly and blasts them with radiation. But since we have not yet amendeded this problem, we should understand that there are two types of TSA agents- those who understand that they are employed in a job, and those who think that they are on an heroic quest.

And we should understand that the latter group, to which Dan belongs, is simply delusional. And in the above clip, Michael Berry flawlessly deconstructs that delusion.

William Sullivan

Regarding Butterhalal Turkeys

To Butterball Representative Stephanie Styons:

My name is William Sullivan, and I am a financial advisor and author that frequently contributes to online magazines such as RedState, WorldNetDaily, and American Thinker. I am writing to you in regard to a recent piece at American Thinker by Pamela Geller asserting that all turkeys distributed by Butterball are "certified halal."

The implication of this that is each turkey is ritualistically slaughtered while invoking Allah, the god described by Islam's prohet Muhammad.

Though I am not overtly religious, millions of Christians might not like this. But apparently, your company feels that this should not matter on a holiday memorializing a Christian celebration. I know, I know. It's completely justified for Muslims to practice a self-imposed mandate to only eat this food that that has been sacrificed to their god, but it's utterly ridiculous that Christians might want to avoid eating food that was sacrificed to a god other than their own . But if I could pose just a simple question to you: Wouldn't it make more sense for Butterball to simply offer some turkeys labeled clearly as "halal" for the American minority of Muslims? Why have you instead chosen to force millions of Americans to do something they that they normally would not with this "stealth halal" ploy? I am generously assuming your company to be capable of reason, and you have to have known that Christians would not knowingly purchase food that has been slaughtered according to Islamic ritual. So why have you chosen to holistically do this with your product?

Unless I hear otherwise from you, I will do all I can to urge my family, friends, and readers to boycott all Butterball products until you offer a non-halal option. (Honestly, the fact that I must make this request in a nation that has a very limited Islamic population makes your practices seem utterly absurd) Please know that I and my family have loyally purchased your products in the past. But until you can meet this incredibly simple request, you will receive not one dime from us. And I will not be alone.

Happy Thanksgiving!

With the utmost sincerity,

William Sullivan

Deconstructing Islam's Template of Perfection

When I was young, I devoted quite a bit of study to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.  The reason for my fascination is now certainly clear, if it was even the slightest bit murky then.  My efforts were to answer that one question that haunts us all in our attempts to deconstruct such depravity and horror: "How could this have happened?"  How had one man created such an ideology of militant proselytism, and how could that one man mold a legion of followers ready to sacrifice themselves to meet its dark ends?

In the Western World today, Nazi Germany stands as the textbook example of fanaticism.  For us, there is no more recognizable instance where the human tendency to follow has been more exploited to commit such crimes against humanity.  But as I have argued before, it is not the only example.

On September 11, 2001, America was shaken when nineteen men hijacked four planes, and then used those planes as weapons, robbing thousands of our innocent brethren of their lives.  Men, women, children; Jew, Christian, Muslim; black, white, brown- the hate exceeded all such boundaries we've come to know as potential dividers among men.  The perpetrators' barrel billowed smoke, and the motive could not be any clearer.  These attackers were devout Muslims, soldiers of Allah, and followers of his prophet Muhammad.  And the America that I had grown up to love was worthy of the bitterest hate by such men- worthy of indiscriminate and large-scale murder.

And I had to know: "How could this have happened?"  How had one man created such an ideology of militant proselytism, and how could that one man mold a legion of followers ready to sacrifice themselves to meet its dark ends?

However, I found the research to be quite a different process in this endeavor.  Where every Tom, Dick, and Harry gladly offered their two cents to the fray to deconstruct the mind of Adolf Hitler, Muhammad's critics seemed far fewer.  As I found, two distinct reasons exist for this.  First, historical records are difficult to find regarding Muhammad's life, so the Quran and the Hadith (Islamic traditions) serve as the most reliable sources for the events of the prophet's life.  Second, and most importantly, is the well-noted observation that Islam has a peculiar means of dealing with its critics, which tends to make otherwise outspoken naysayers quickly adhere to Mother's old adage: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Luckily, Muhammad and his successors were not of the mind that there was any wrong in the actions of Allah's prophet and his new seventh century army of Muslims that ravaged Arabia, so they apparently didn't feel the need to airbrush the content we are left with.  Complete among the texts of modern Islamic jurisprudence are tales of polygamy and pedophilia, pillage and plunder, torture and terror, misogyny and mendacity, and widescale murder and mayhem.  Much of this has been highlighted in the works of certain bold critics such as Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Andrew Bostom, and Pamela Geller to name just a few.  (Particularly, Spencer's The Truth About Muhammad provides an extremely detailed description of Islam's ideal man.)

Yet despite these efforts, many Americans still don't know a thing about it.  To be honest, few of us felt the need to care about such things before that clear September morning of 2001, despite the fact that violent, armed jihad had for years been a viable tactic for extremist Muslims worldwide.  But now, knowing full-well the magnitude of damage a small number of extremists can cause, it is imperative that the roots of Islam be examined, as it is these very roots that sprout the toxic fruit of Islamic fundamentalism that we call "jihad."

And in examining those roots, some things are undeniable.  Among these is the fact that Muhammad's primary source of income was earned by piracy and theft, plundering the caravans of tradesmen as if it were his divine right.  He had many wives and countless lovers, and consummated the marriage with the child Aisha at the age of nine.  He had his critics (often poets of Arabic tribes) murdered by his followers in the dead of night.  And apart from ordering the stoning of adulterers, he ordered the beheading of hundreds of males in the Jewish Qurayza tribe upon their defeat at Muslim hands, which is but one instance of these mass executions.

Pertinent to note is that none of these claims are commonly refuted by scholars on either side of the argument.  As such, Muhammad's defense primarily consists of condemnation for opposing critics- for having the audacity to look at these seventh century events through a modern Western lens.  And, of course, this condemnation is laced with ample accusations of "Islamophobia."

But it must be asked, as Muhammad is the ideal man in Islam- the template for emulation by all good, righteous Muslims- should it be a wonder when an Islamic Iranian regime lowers the legal marrying age for women to nine? Or when Islamic villages religiously sanctify the stoning of adulterers? Or when men like Theo van Gogh are murdered for their criticism of Islam? Or when vast numbers of men and women are beheaded in the name of Allah and his prophet?

Submitted for the consideration of the readers of Political Palaver is the slideshow below, which details the information I discuss above, complete with sourcing identical to that I have found elsewhere in my study.  Please note, if you choose to read these presented slides- know that there are extremely graphic images, and that the content is politically charged with a harsh tenor against Islam.  Unmistakable is the Christian slant of the presentation, which in some cases goes beyond the necessary criticism in this author's opinion, as there are allegations that Muhammad was given to homoeroticism, incest, cross-dressing, and that he had suicidal tendencies. However, what cannot be denied is the heavily sourced nature of the content, cited directly from the holy texts of Islam and various critiques. In this regard, I will leave the merit of the slideshow to be assessed by each who may view it, who may then take from it what he may. 

And please know that I do not mean to offer this as an indictment upon all Muslims, as I am fully aware that most contemporary Muslims practice their faith in a manner conducive to peaceful existence in Western culture.  Most Muslims live their lives adhering to the Five Pillars of Islam and practicing in peace while rejecting the more misogynistic and violent aspects of the seventh-century iteration of the faith. And some of these Muslims are my friends. But as I have friends who are staunchly critical of my Christian faith (and considering Christian history is certainly not above scrutiny and condemnation), this is merely meant to be a critical analysis, albeit an extremely harsh one, of Islam's foundation, its model, and an explanation for the "why" of what we call Islamic "radicalism."  There is merit in such efforts, and though such things may be unpleasant to think about, it does not mean that such considerations should be absent from constructive discussion.  And to understand the enemy we face in Islamic fundamentalism, we must understand why some followers of the faith feel their murderous jihad to be divinely ordained.

And to try and understand that, one must try to understand Muhammad.  Perhaps this slideshow will give added context to some, and for other Americans it may just be a start.  And whether that start is an attempt to prove or disprove the assertions of the presentation, it will hopefully be of value.

William Sullivan

The Perfect Man of Islam


Thanks to CrossMuslims blog for this PowerPoint.  Original can be found here.

The Crazily Increasing Wealth of the 1%

"This week, a new economic report confirmed what most Americans already believe to be true: over the past three decades, the middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier. In fact, the average income for the top one percent of Americans has risen almost seven times faster than the income of the average middle class family. "
-President Obama, October 29, 2011.

Ummmmmm...

THE TOP 1% WEALTH SHARE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1916-2000

Sometimes lies make for a better story than the truth, I guess. Courtesy of Randall Hoven's brilliant observation, Graph of the Day on American Thinker.

William Sullivan

John Quincy Adams' One Paragraph Lesson on Islam

In today's world, any critic of Islam is labeled an Islamophobe and marginalized by society at large. But it was not always so.  Here, abolitionist, scholar, and sixth President of the United States John Quincy Adams delivers the most concise, yet deeply analytical assessment of the "why" of Islam.

Please read on.

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab [Muhammad] of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adams' capital letters]… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men...The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.


Profoud, undeniable truths.  Yet largely hidden today- they are glossed over in efforts to present Islam in a more favorable light.  Thanks to Traeh of the JihadWatch forum for posting this marvelous quote.

William Sullivan

What Obama Accomplished in Libya

On October 20th, Barack Obama said that "he is "very proud" of the US role in the Libyan operation, calling it proof that working with allies can be effective."

But what, effectively, did we accomplish? On October 31st, the Daily Mail reported:

The black flag of Al Qaeda was hoisted in Libya yesterday as Nato formally ended its military campaign.

The standard fluttered from the roof of the courthouse in Benghazi, where the country’s new rulers have imposed sharia law since seizing power.

What did we accomplish? Our blind ambition to spread democracy and ruthlessly depose dictators has created a political vacuum in Libya that has granted a legitimate mandate for the most notorious anti-Western terrorist organization on the planet.

Ten years ago, George W. Bush declared war on Al Qaeda for their crimes against America and the Western World. He began a mission to seek out and destroy this vile terrorist organization at all costs.

In 2011, Barack Obama had a hand in giving them a nation. And he is proud of this accomplishment.

William Sullivan

Will 9-9-9 Hurt the Middle Class?

There's a lot of mish-mashed conservative talk out there about Herman Cain’s proposed 9-9-9 tax plan being a tax-hike for the middle class.  The latest came from Rick Santorum in last night's debate, in which he suggested that cutting corporate and income taxes to a flat 9% while applying a federal sales tax of 9% would equate to a tax increase for 84% of Americans, as reported in a recent tax analysis.  Exacerbating this travesty, he suggests, is that Cain’s plan allows no deductions for poverty stricken families and the middle class.

In trying to discredit Herman Cain, Rick Santorum discredits himself- by regurgitating scare tactics and broad, untrue statements akin to Obama's promise in 2008 to "cut taxes from 95% of American families."  

First, let's do some basic math.  Utilizing the current marginal tax rates, a family earning $75,000 annually finds itself in the 25% tax bracket.  With the progressive application of federal income tax, this tax is actually ~15% of wages.  This is 3% less than Cain’s suggested 18% that would be paid in federal income tax on wages earned and sales tax on items purchased.  Sounds like Herman might be giving the middle class a raw deal, huh?  Well, consider the payroll taxes that wage earners currently pay, and this same family will see an additional 7.65% of their wages garnished for Social Security and Medicare, for a grand total of 22.65%.  Cain’s suggested plan replaces these costs in the simplistic 9-9-9 plan, and this 18% is 4.65% lower than this number.

If I know anything about which number is lower than the other number, Cain’s 18% is a reduction in federal taxes for middle-class Americans, not a tax-hike.     

Second, consider that high corporate taxes account for added consumer cost, as companies generally pass these levied corporate taxes on to consumers in the form of higher prices.**  By reducing corporate taxes, prices will naturally fall for competing companies in multiple areas of production.  You don't have to call it "cutting taxes for the middle class" if that doesn't agree with you.  Let's just call it, "a plan to let the middle class keep more of their hard-earned money."

Finally, it’s clear that Santorum didn’t think through his accusation that the plan “eliminates” deductions.  Cain’s website clearly states that deductions on both income and sales tax will be applied via “empowerment zones” to lessen the burden on those who might need such support.  Herman kindly reminded him of this on the stage, another well-placed nail in the coffin containing Santorum’s presidential ambition.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan does have some questions surrounding it.  For example, the aboliton of current tax code would decimate the accounting industry, harming growth and GDP while costing American jobs.  Another concern I have is that retirees, who generally keep income low to avoid higher taxation of retirement accounts, might see increases in taxes paid, which could harm their retirement outlook.  But how are we to address these questions and find solutions if Herman Cain is constantly having to deflect untrue claims that 9-9-9 amounts to a huge tax-hike?

William Sullivan

** Argument supporting this economic reality can be found here.

Retro Debate- Herman Cain vs. Bill Clinton

Very interesting video, from 1994.



You've got to hand it to Slick Willy.  First of all, I give him credit for honestly fielding and addressing the question.  At least Clinton tries to debate the numbers before crawling back into the bastion of party talking points, like "balanced approach," and "fair shares," which is more than we could ever expect of our current president.  Second, he sure knows how to work an audience.  When Clinton's argument confirms that HillaryCare would increase cost for businesses across America, what does he do?  He cracks a joke, poking fun at his notorious love of food, and suggests that the healthcare mandates would only add 2% to Cain's company's bottom line.  And that's no big deal, right?  Just pass it on to consumers, they'll pay it!

Sound familiar? If you have a Bank of America account, it should. A recent federal mandate levied by those lawyers in Washington (and unsurprisingly, spearheaded by Democrats) has negatively impacted BoA's profitability, so now we have to pay $5 a month to use our debit cards. Administrative costs have been passed on to consumers.  No big deal either, I guess. 

But once the laughter from Clinton's joke subsides, Cain explains that this "2%" figure, and his numbers in general, are all wrong.  The burden to the company would be much higher than Clinton estimates.  But shortly after, Clinton skates out of this moment with minimal damage by suggesting that if Cain would only send his numbers to the White House office, Slick Willy'd straighten him out.  Cain then went on to send over those numbers, and subsequently authored an op-ed on the subject for the Wall Street Journal, and is credited as a major factor in the collapse of support for HillaryCare. 

Personally, I'd relish an opportunity to see Herman Cain debate Barack Obama, and have become more excited at the prospect after seeing this exchange with Bill Clinton, who is, in my estimation, far more skilled in debate than our current teleprompter junkie in the Oval Office.  It would be an absolute evisceration of Obama's platform. One guy is a seasoned businessman and mathematician that understands real-world fiscal operation, and the other guy is a college professor and politician that understands the socialistic concepts that he read about in some books. One guy has created geniune wealth, while the other has only manipulated it to satisfy his radical ideology.

Every four years, we bicker about which representative we should select from among the putrid cesspool that is American politics.  I, for one, find Herman Cain to be a breath of fresh air, and miles from ordinary.
 
William Sullivan

Lawrence O’Donnell Plunges the Left to New Depths

The most disgraceful interview I have ever seen.  (Full video here.)



Herman Cain completely destroys Lawrence O'Donnell on every race-baiting issue thrown his way. And on the issue of Vietnam? Cain worked with the Department of the Navy on ballistic missile testing during that era as a mathematician. Cain explains that in the later years, when he would have been eligible to serve, he entered the lottery, and would have served had he been selected. 

Wait for it- O'Donnell suggests that he should have just joined rather than enter a lottery, and brings up John Kerry as a reference for bravery, for what Cain should have done! A leftist media darling Kerry may be, but loved by the military he is not- I guess that's what happens when you slather lies to incriminate your fellow soldiers and sensationalize your political platform after your service, and then take the national stage to say that the military is comprised of uneducated simpletons.

(Apparently, a military not without a sense of humor, though.  See below)


O'Donnell says he is offended for the soldiers that decided to go to war while Cain simply made himself available to go to war. Wondering what O’Donnell did during Vietnam? Curious? He was in college and got a deferment- and this is the platform he’s using to scold Cain for avoiding the war. Is that really any more righteous? You’ve got to think, is being a hypocrite is a positive trait for American progressives?

Better yet, poll the military: ask who they'd rather have as president and commander-in-chief. A lucid businessman who served our military as a ballistic missile tech for the Navy, or a rabble-rouser with no connection to the military whatsoever.  We all know the answer to this question, don't we?

What a stupid, irresponsible accusation, from a stupid, irresponsible man. I'd say he should be fired, but he currently has the lowest rated show on the major networks in his time slot, so maybe he'll just go away naturally. 

Nonetheless, Herman Cain continues to impress.

William Sullivan

Janeane Garofalo Waxes Stupid About Racism... Again

Forgive me, but I must indulge.  One school of thought is that addressing Janeane Garofalo's stupidity empowers her.  That the mere mention of it gives her words the power of sensationalism, thereby lending some sort of credence to her wild and senseless rhetoric.

I do not subscribe to that school of thought. 

True, only the zaniest of the zany liberals even take notice of Garofalo.  The rest of us generally do ignore her, as we would ignore the crackhead that we encounter on the street corner, pacing about as he incoherently babbles on about God knows what.  But the sheer inanity of Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo's recent little pow-wow sends this conversation to an other-worldly level.  Stupidity the likes of which can only be cultivated by the prevailing pseudo-intellectualism of modern progressives.

According to Garofalo, conservatives have a good reason to back Herman Cain.  She says that conservatives support a black presidential candidate because they are trying to hide their racism against black people.

"People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert," she says. "And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"

Let it be known- this is not the first stupid thing Janeane Garofalo has said regarding racism in America.  I once heard her vehemently deny that the Democratic Party offered the staunchest opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In her mind, Republicans are invariably the bad ones, not Democrats.  Always have been, always will be, "truth" and "history" be damned.  Lousy God and gun clingers.  Fostering equal rights for minorities, how dare they!

But, to be sure, this rant is even more ridiculous.  The meat of her argument is that racist conservatives don't like Barack Obama because is a black man, but they love Herman Cain because he is a black man.

If you're scratching your head at that, don't.  All you need to know, Garofalo says, is that our country is more racist now than ever before- now that we have a black president, "how could it not be?"  Of course, this black president won a popular election at a national level, signifying "less racism," but don't get hung up on that- such cohesion only mucks up Garofalo's logic.  So you probably also don't want to consider that for the first time in history, significant swathes of diametrically opposing political parties in America are both considering a black man for leadership. 

But hey, I guess she figures with eyeglass frames and an elitist tenor that thick, Americans would just believe any damn thing she says without such considerations.

So what are we to make of Garofalo, really?  It's not hard.  She's just following Spencer Ackerman's formula that came to light in the Journolist scandal, where he suggested that calling Republicans racist is the best way to discredit them: 

Take one of them [on the right] — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?

[...]

What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.

Beyond this, she proves herself to be something of a racist.  So focused is she on the fact that Herman Cain is black that she finds it impossible that conservatives could support him based upon his ideas, or the substance of his achievements, or the character he exhibits.  No, they must be just looking at him as a "black guy to be supported so they can hide white guilt."

And perhaps the funniest thing of all?  She derides FoxNews and others as having "zero credibility"- in the very moment that she mounted the edifice of relevance and took a 10-story swan dive right into the pavement. 

And I loved every second of it too much to not comment.

William Sullivan

Video found here.

Mr. EBT (H-man) Waxes Hip-Hop About Welfare Culture

This video hit Drudge Report this morning, showing a young rapper named Mr. EBT talking about "swipin' his EBT," (welfare card) and what he can and can't buy with it.  Drudge linked the video as "Song Celbrates Welfare Card!"



The onslaught of conservative commenters from Drudge's link generally relayed criticism of the welfare state and for the video itself, which they certainly found to be celebrating welfare culture.  Leftist commenters on the video, however, find it to be critical of welfare culture rather than a celebration of it. And like clockwork, they elicit the progressive's modus operandi by suggesting that anyone who criticizes the video is obviously an ignorant, right-wing racist. It's a simple matter of one thing invariably meaning another in the thought process of those with a leftist tilt.  These progressives assume that conservatives are uneducated and uncultured, so they can't critically process the tongue-in-cheekery of the song and video.  They assume that because conservatives don't like an expansive welfare state, they must be racists.  And they assume that since these conservatives are readers of Drudge, they must therefore all be hatemongers like those nuts in the Tea Party.

But since some among the left have decided they know everything about me because I read the Drudge Report and I am against a welfare state, I feel the need for a disclaimer- I like rap music.  I grew up with it.  I listened to it avidly in high school in the mid-late 1990's when rap hit its stride.  When the lines were drawn between East and West with Death Row and Bad Boy records, Too Short had set the rules for pimpin' with "Born to Mack," and Dre and Snoop had laid down the legendary "Chronic" album.

But something happened since then.  What exactly that "something" was is a matter of perspective.  I like to think it was the music that changed.  That Jay-Z and Nelly ripping off beats from an '80s song and making up ridiculous lyrics to accompany the unoriginal score just didn't have the unique flavor of the gangsta rap of yesteryear.  Or, maybe I just got older.  Maybe a little of both.

So I guess that's why I think Drudgers could be forgiven for being unsure whether or not this video is satire lampooning welfare culture or it is a video celebrating it.  Ever since Nelly hit it big singing about needing "two purr" of "Air Force Ones," it's a little hard to draw the distinction between what hip hop culture finds to be nonsense and what it accepts into its artistic canon.  That song, about sneakers, could have just as easily been a joke, but it turns out it was not.  Mr. EBT's song could just as easily be celebrating his lifestyle on welfare or making a joke about those who live that lifestyle on welfare.  Without knowing Mr. EBT, his intention is obscure, despite those among the elitist left claiming that their preferred interpretation is undoubtedly the right one.

But that is not why conservatives get riled in seeing this video. What makes conservatives riled is that the video is a reminder, parody or not,  that this problem with entitlement could not be more real. 

I've seen it firsthand.  For a couple of years, I lived in the Third Ward in downtown Houston, directly adjacent to Clayton Homes, which is a public housing community.  Of course, it wasn't the squalor that some might envision of public housing.  Every window had a satellite dish, the apartments were relatively new, and  the grounds were fairly well-kept on a daily basis.  But once while living there, I witnessed something that will be etched in my mind forever when addressing entitlement.  And interestingly enough, the very first thing I thought about when I saw this video.

I had come to be on friendly terms with the Korean-American who owned a convenience store in the area.  When I walked in one evening, I stood in line with six other people who were in front of me.  These six people were apparently doing some grocery shopping, as I saw in their hands many food items, such as Cheetos, donuts, Dr. Pepper, etc.  There were two clerks working the one register, hurriedly scanning and sacking the various items, one of which was the owner.  He saw me, and knew that I always paid in cash, and saw that I only had one item.  After helping the immediate customer, he slid to the right and opened another register and asked me to come ahead and quickly pay so I could be on my way.  A woman that remained in line became furious, so she said, "Why he get to go on up there?"  He looked at her familiarly, and said "Because he's paying in cash and he's only got one item."

To this, she flipped and waved her Lonestar (welfare) card in the air, and said, "His money ain't no better than my money.  I'm paying wit' my Visa."  She smiled at me satisfactorily.

I looked at her, and all I could do was smile.  I could do no more than stand there dumbly and wonder if she truly believed that she was spending her own money, and if she did, how far we had fallen as a society.  Mr. EBT did much more than that- he wrote a song about her.  Whether or not his song about her was a joke or a celebration that she gets to live this way doesn't matter.  The fact is that she exists, with millions like her, offering nothing to society- only taking what she is given and feeling that she deserves that and so much more for having done nothing but simply exist.

So maybe Mr. EBT is suggesting that this society of dependency is a problem.  If so, it's an interesting way to convey that truth.  If not, he is simply part of that very serious problem.

William Sullivan

Mark Steyn Deconstructs Our Remembrance of 9/11

Brilliant as ever, Mark Steyn deconstructs our remembrance of 9/11:

"And so we commemorate an act of war as a “tragic event,” and we retreat to equivocation, cultural self-loathing, and utterly fraudulent misrepresentation about the events of the day."

This is a must read. May God bless those that perished on that day, and may we never forget why they were shuffled off this mortal coil. And may God bless the United States of America!

William


Let's Roll Over
by Mark Steyn

Waiting to be interviewed on the radio the other day, I found myself on hold listening to a public-service message exhorting listeners to go to 911day.org and tell their fellow citizens how they would be observing the tenth anniversary of the, ah, “tragic events.” There followed a sound bite of a lady explaining that she would be paying tribute by going and cleaning up an area of the beach.


Great! Who could object to that? Anything else? Well, another lady pledged that she “will continue to discuss anti-bullying tactics with my grandson.”

Marvelous. Because studies show that many middle-school bullies graduate to hijacking passenger jets and flying them into tall buildings?


Whoa, ease up on the old judgmentalism there, pal. In New Jersey, many of whose residents were among the dead, middle-schoolers will mark the anniversary with a special 9/11 curriculum that will “analyze diversity and prejudice in U.S. history.” And, if the “9/11 Peace Story Quilt” at the Metropolitan Museum of Art teaches us anything, it’s that the “tragic events” only underline the “importance of respect.” And “understanding.” As one of the quilt panels puts it:

You should never feel left out

You are a piece of a puzzle

And without you

The whole picture can’t be seen.

And if that message of “healing and unity” doesn’t sum up what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, what does? A painting of a plane flying into a building? A sculpture of bodies falling from a skyscraper? Oh, don’t be so drearily literal. “It is still too soon,” says Midori Yashimoto, director of the New Jersey City University Visual Arts Gallery, whose exhibition “Afterwards & Forward” is intended to “promote dialogue, deeper reflection, meditation, and contextualization.” So, instead of planes and skyscrapers, it has Yoko Ono’s “Wish Tree,” on which you can hang little tags with your ideas for world peace.

What’s missing from these commemorations?

Firemen?

Oh, please. There are some pieces of the puzzle we have to leave out. As Mayor Bloomberg’s office has patiently explained, there’s “not enough room” at the official Ground Zero commemoration to accommodate any firemen. “Which is kind of weird,” wrote the Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle, “since 343 of them managed to fit into the exact same space ten years ago.” On a day when all the fancypants money-no-object federal acronyms comprehensively failed — CIA, FBI, FAA, INS — the only bit of government that worked was the low-level unglamorous municipal government represented by the Fire Department of New York. When they arrived at the World Trade Center the air was thick with falling bodies — ordinary men and women trapped on high floors above where the planes had hit, who chose to spend their last seconds in one last gulp of open air rather than die in an inferno of jet fuel. Far “too soon” for any of that at New Jersey City University, but perhaps you could reenact the moment by filling out a peace tag for Yoko Ono’s “Wish Tree” and then letting it flutter to the ground.

Upon arrival at the foot of the towers, two firemen were hit by falling bodies. “There is no other way to put it,” one of their colleagues explained. “They exploded.”

Any room for that on the Metropolitan Museum’s “Peace Quilt”? Sadly not. We’re all out of squares.

What else is missing from these commemorations?

“Let’s Roll”?

What’s that — a quilting technique?

No, what’s missing from these commemorations is more Muslims. The other day I bumped into an old BBC pal who’s flying in for the anniversary to file a dispatch on why you see fewer women on the streets of New York wearing niqabs and burqas than you do on the streets of London. She thought this was a telling indictment of the post-9/11 climate of “Islamophobia.” I pointed out that, due to basic differences in immigration sources, there are far fewer Muslims in New York than in London. It would be like me flying into Stratford-on-Avon and reporting on the lack of Hispanics. But the suits had already approved the trip, so she was in no mood to call it off.

How are America’s allies remembering the real victims of 9/11? “Muslim Canucks Deal with Stereotypes Ten Years After 9/11,” reports CTV in Canada. And it’s a short step from stereotyping to criminalizing. “How the Fear of Being Criminalized Has Forced Muslims into Silence,” reports the Guardian in Britain. In Australia, a Muslim terrorism suspect was so fearful of being criminalized and stereotyped in the post-9/11 epidemic of paranoia that he pulled a Browning pistol out of his pants and hit Sgt. Adam Wolsey of the Sydney constabulary. Fortunately, Judge Leonie Flannery acquitted him of shooting with intent to harm on the grounds that “‘anti-Muslim sentiment’ made him fear for his safety,” as Sydney’s Daily Telegraph reported on Friday. That’s such a heartwarming story for this 9/11 anniversary they should add an extra panel to the peace quilt, perhaps showing a terror suspect opening fire on a judge as she’s pronouncing him not guilty and then shrugging off the light shoulder wound as a useful exercise in healing and unity.

What of the 23rd Psalm? It was recited by Flight 93 passenger Todd Beamer and the telephone operator Lisa Jefferson in the final moments of his life before he cried, “Let’s roll!” and rushed the hijackers.


No, sorry. Aside from firemen, Mayor Bloomberg’s official commemoration hasn’t got any room for clergy, either, what with all the Executive Deputy Assistant Directors of Healing and Outreach who’ll be there. One reason why there’s so little room at Ground Zero is because it’s still a building site. As I write in my new book, 9/11 was something America’s enemies did to us; the ten-year hole is something we did to ourselves — and in its way, the interminable bureaucratic sloth is surely as eloquent as anything Nanny Bloomberg will say in his remarks.

In Shanksville, Pa., the zoning and permitting processes are presumably less arthritic than in Lower Manhattan, but the Flight 93 memorial has still not been completed. There were objections to the proposed “Crescent of Embrace” on the grounds that it looked like an Islamic crescent pointing towards Mecca. The defense of its designers was that, au contraire, it’s just the usual touchy-feely huggy-weepy pansy-wimpy multiculti effete healing diversity mush. It doesn’t really matter which of these interpretations is correct, since neither of them has anything to do with what the passengers of Flight 93 actually did a decade ago. 9/11 was both Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid rolled into one, and the fourth flight was the only good news of the day, when citizen volunteers formed themselves into an ad hoc militia and denied Osama bin Laden what might have been his most spectacular victory. A few brave individuals figured out what was going on and pushed back within half an hour. But we can’t memorialize their sacrifice within a decade. And when the architect gets the memorial brief, he naturally assumes that there’s been a typing error and that “Let’s roll!” should really be “Let’s roll over!”

And so we commemorate an act of war as a “tragic event,” and we retreat to equivocation, cultural self-loathing, and utterly fraudulent misrepresentation about the events of the day. In the weeks after 9/11, Americans were enjoined to ask, “Why do they hate us?” A better question is: “Why do they despise us?” And the quickest way to figure out the answer is to visit the Peace Quilt and the Wish Tree, the Crescent of Embrace and the Hole of Bureaucratic Inertia.

Mark Steyn, as first published in National Review Online.

If the Shoe Fits, It Must Be Islamophobia

Really Big Coloring Books has issued a new book that may introduce children to the events of 9/11.  In this book, called "We Shall Never Forget 9/11," children will learn the horrors, heroism, and national pride that resulted from the vicious attacks of 9/11.

In the honest telling of that story, some people tend to have strange reactions.  Some people (affectionately self-proclaimed yet derogatorily known as Truthers) get all worked up and ask that Americans venture into some illogical rabbit hole of zany and needlessly elaborate conspiracy theories.  But thankfully, these people are isolated in the leftist or anarchist fringe, so no one really bothers with what they think. 

But there is another group of people, however, with mountains of political clout and billions in funding that wish to rewrite the history of this event and its aftermath. And they take particular exception with this coloring book and it's conveyance of the facts to impressionable children.  Heaven, forbid.

Wayne Bell, the Publisher of Really Big Coloring Books, Inc., says there’s been a negative backlash against the book “We Shall Never Forget 9/11: The Kids’ Book of Freedom.”


“These are people from Al-Jazeera that have called in here numerous times, people from Iranian TV, people from Palestinian Hamas TV,” Bell said, “A lot of people from the Islamic community have called in here and said increasingly negative things prior to the book being made and then after we made the book too, about the book itself.”

The book features images of Osama Bin Laden and Islamic terrorists. It also shows American citizens upset by the attacks, including a woman with a cross around her neck. But it shows no Muslim Americans mourning the attacks.

The Council on American Islamic Relations has criticized the book as one-sided, only portraying Muslims as either “extremists” or “terrorists. ”

No portrayal of Muslims grieving? If I want my child to read fairy tales, I'll pick up a copy of the Brothers Grimm. But as far as reality, I don't remember any massive effort of the Muslim community to denounce armed jihad in the wake of 9/11. And if they had, believe me, the media would let every man, woman, and child know about it, and Americans would be a little less unsettled. I have no doubt that there were Muslims that grieved, but certainly not prevalently enough to warrant inclusion into a short coloring book meant to explain the events surrounding 9/11.

And as far as the "why" of 9/11, it's really rather simple. Self-proclaimed soldiers of Allah flew planes into building killing thousands of innocent people because they subscribed to a doctrine of hate known as fundamentalist Islam. Short and sweet, no need to muck it up with references to the statistically marginal grieving of domestic Muslims, thank you.

Telling our children that fundamentalist Muslims are responsible for the worst attack ever committed on US soil and that they carried it out in the name of their god is not indoctrinating them.  In fact, to tell them anything otherwise would be lying to them!  It is important to convey to our children that being a Muslim does not make one evil or malicious, but it's doubly important that they are told the truth.

And it's hard to deny what that truth is.  All signs point to the publisher receiving threats for having published this coloring book that simply tells the truth about 9/11- threats from the Islamic fundamentalists that are upset because they are portrayed as violent extremists.  This is some way to overcome that perception.  "We are a peaceful religion, dammit!  Portray us that way, or we'll kill you."

The book can be purchased here.

William Sullivan

Thanks to Robert Spencer and JihadWatch for story.

Premature Babies, Infant Mortality, and Socialized Medicine

A recent report by Dr. Linda Halderman begins with the question:

Q: If socialized medicine is so bad, why are infant mortality rates higher in the U.S. than in other developed nations with government or single-payer health care?

A: U.S. infant mortality rates (deaths of infants <1 year of age per 1,000 live births) are sometimes cited as evidence of the failings of the U.S. system of health care delivery. Universal health care, it’s argued, is why babies do better in countries with socialized medicine.

But in fact, the main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. The way that these factors are reported — and how such babies are treated statistically — tells a different story than what the numbers reveal.

Dr. Halderman goes on to handily destroy this broadly accepted myth of the global left, and I certainly suggest looking over the insurmountable case she presents.

Americans may remember this argument being brought up in the healthcare debate.  Proponents of the ObamaCare model, which more closely resembles a Euro or Canadian-style system, would suggest that since American infant mortality rates are higher than these other nations with more socialized healthcare, they must have better healthcare systems than America, right?  The implication is that these other nations are able to save more infants' lives, which is presumably evidence of a more efficient healthcare construct. 

But I guess that all just depends on what your definition of "life" is.  Americans recognize a life if it, well... lives.  Born.  Breathing.  Heartbeat.  Reacting to stimuli.  Any of these things.  It's not rocket science.

These other nations with socialized medicine only recognize an infant's life if it meets their standards of what they think "life" is- or at least what it should be for reporting purposes.  According to Dr. Halderman's report:

-Low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.

-Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as “stillborn” if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth. **

And if an infant doesn't meet these state requirements it takes to be considered alive, can that infant ever really die?

Not according to the comrade that's tallying the low "infant mortality rates" that are touted as a measure of the success of state-run healthcare.

So do you really want socialized medicine, America? Where the state must first declare that your prematurely born baby meets the requirements of being considered a life and therefore worthy of saving before efforts are made and resources are dedicated to the task?  This is not fear mongering- and it's certainly not far-fetched.  Consider how Dr. Halderman concludes her report::

Too short to count?

In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates.


Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.


The parents of these children may view socialized medicine somewhat differently than its proponents.

Indeed.  They are certainly lucky for their children to have been born in the American healthcare system, rather than a single-payer or universal healthcare system that would have declared their child to have never existed at all.  Let us hope that the future may hold such joy for some lucky parents in America.

-William Sullivan

Thanks to Rick Moran of American Thinker

** Perhaps pertinent to note, 40% of all infant deaths result in the first 24 hours after birth.

Climate Science Fiction

America’s confidence in the scientific community was lightly rocked when the Guardian, an accredited British news outlet, claimed that NASA affiliated climate scientists at Penn State reported in a scientific study that “Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilizations.” Daily Mail Online made a similar report.

The Huffington Post was quick to refute the claim. So was Network World’s Michael Cooney. But they merely refute that it is a “NASA report.” Meaning to say, it was not a federally funded study, though one of the scientists is very clearly affiliated with NASA. Yet neither can refute that the scientific report exists. It is very real.

One of the authors of the report, Shawn Domagal-Goldman, apologized for touting his affiliation with NASA, which he undoubtedly employed to lend credence to the report’s findings. However, in his final disclaimer, he states: “I stand by the analysis in the paper.”

Here’s a sample of this “analysis,” which seems to present beneficial, neutral, and harmful outcomes to human interaction with extraterrestrials:

"A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions," the report states.

"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.

This “scientific report” has been at least limitedly accepted as “science,” evidenced by its ready availability through Cornell University Library online. So let me make sure I have this straight.  In modern academia, merely suggesting that eons ago a God could have been responsible for the Big Bang (an entirely obscure event that has no known catalyst) is an absurd suggestion worthy of expulsion from the scientific community. Yet suggesting that we change our way of life based upon the prospect that little green men could vaporize humanity on the grounds that we are not environmentally friendly? That is accredited science.

The “scientists” admit that it is a “highly speculative scenario.” But such “highly speculative scenarios” are the stuff of science fiction, not legitimate science. And indeed, the very same scenarios of this scientific study make up the canon of science fiction. The report relates that a beneficial result of alien interaction could result in innovations that could enhance the human experience. We’ve seen this before in a Twilight Zone episode called “The Gift” where an alien brings humanity a cure for cancer, and the film "Men In Black" suggests that this has already happened, resulting in Velcro and compact discs. Neutral outcomes to alien interaction could result in humanity being invited to a “Galactic Club” (the Federation of Star Trek?), or that aliens could become a nuisance as they do in "District 9," which the “scientists” even suggest as a point of reference for such potential interaction!

As far as harmful outcomes, we can infer from the outline of the report that there are two types of scenarios here: contact with selfish extraterrestrials, and Universalist extraterrestrials. We can assume that the selfish extraterrestrials would seek to eradicate humanity for resources or control of the planet (see: "Independence Day" and "War of the Worlds"). Universalist extraterrestrials, therefore, are the aforementioned intergalactic environmentalists that would come and destroy us because we are a threat to ourselves, the Earth, and alien beings. Because if advanced alien life forms exist, their understanding and ambition would probably fall in line perfectly with the intellectual elites of Earth, don’t you know.

Oh, and as fellow Political Palaver blogger Calvin Parker has reminded me, the latter plot is even lifted from the remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” Seems to me that there isn’t an ounce of science or even originality in this report- only liberal borrowings from science fiction films.

Hasn’t the anthropogenic global warming nonsense done enough damage to the science fiction genre? It is responsible for "Waterworld," after all. Now it has to rip off science fiction by stealing its ideas and doomsday scenarios and presenting them as some new scientific theory?

Here’s what genuine science might have to say about the “speculative” prospects of alien life, as described by Rick Moran of American Thinker, referencing the study group SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). “Most experts believe that if aliens exist, their thought processes - logic, reason, perceptions - would be, well, ALIEN. They wouldn't reason the same way we do. And to ascribe a logical thought process (humans ruin their own planet therefore humans must be destroyed) to an unknown alien civilization is beyond idiocy. It enters the rarified milieu of the mentally deranged - people who would spend all day banging their heads against a wall if allowed.”

But that’s modern science for you- scientists banging their heads against a wall trying to prove to a disbelieving populace that carbon proliferation leads to dangerous warming trends and will ultimately lead to famine, scorched earth, dangerously rising sea levels, and now alien invasion. If academics really wanted to solve a mystery of the universe, perhaps they could figure out how these increasingly absurd studies suggesting the outrageous ramifications of anthropogenic climate change are continually passed off as “science.”

William Sullivan

Peer Into The Diseased Mind Of Farrakhan

Where terrorists are good men, and the murder of innocents is justified.



Courtesy of Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.

The Silent Gasps of Free Speech in America

Robert Spencer and Pamela Gellar have been wrongfully slandered for inciting the Oslo murders, and where media outlets allow for liberal doses of condemnation, they have refused to allow them to defend themselves.

Free speech attacking critics of Islam? Loud as ever. The free speech of wrongully slandered critics of Islam? Thoroughly muted.

Except at American Thinker, which has published their rebuttal. I've read the works of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, and have found it to be concise and well-supported criticism. They go to great lengths to proclaim an agenda of non-violence, and avoid generalizations that demonize all Muslims. They simply expose Islamic fanatacism that, thanks to a well-orchestrated PC government/media construct, flies under the radar of many Americans.

Please read and share.

William Sullivan

Norway, Free Speech, and the Counterjihad
By Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

Ever since the heinous murders in Norway, we have been subjected to an unrelenting campaign of vilification. It appears that the Norway mass murderer Anders Breivik cited us, along with John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama and a host of others, in his lengthy cut-and-paste manifesto; despite that manifesto's ideological incoherence, his citations of our work have led to an international campaign to blame us for the massacre. The New York Times, NBC, the BBC, CNN, the Washington Post, many European publications, and a host of others have claimed that we are responsible for creating a climate of "hate" in which a Breivik was inevitable. This is not only false, but such charges against us challenge fundamental principles of the freedom of speech.

We submitted this present article defending ourselves to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Post, National Review, the American Spectator, the London Spectator, the Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal. Most ignored the submission altogether; National Review and the New York Post were the only ones who bothered to inform us that they were turning down the piece. The mainstream media was ready and eager to demonize us, but not so willing to give us a fair hearing and a chance to rebut their false charges.

In the first place, the claim that we are engaged in focusing hatred upon or engaged in demonizing any group is false. In fact, it is more true of our opponents' attacks on our own work than it is of anything we have said or done. We stand and have always stood against the evil of using violence for political and religious goals, and against all political and religious fanaticism. We stand and have always stood against the use of violence to advance any political agenda. We have stood consistently and still stand for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. Anyone who sincerely upholds and wishes to defend those principles, whatever his creed or background, we count as an ally.

Those who claim that we have incited hatred that leads to violence are using an argument that can be used against themselves. Critics of American and NATO foreign policy should note that there have been numerous terror attacks committed by people who oppose that foreign policy. Are such critics responsible for creating a climate of hatred that led such people to commit terror attacks? In the 1960s, the Ku Klux Klan blamed Martin Luther King, Jr. for the Watts riots. King was steadfastly nonviolent, but he agreed with the political perspectives of the rioters. Was he then responsible for creating a climate of hatred that led to the riots? Was his righteous cause delegimitized by the fact that some departed from his express wishes and resorted to violence?

What's more, the media outlets that have blamed us for the Norway murders are practicing a double standard. Just days ago, a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Army, Pfc. Naser Abdo, was arrested with bomb materials. He admitted to plotting another jihad terror mass murder spree at Fort Hood in Texas, in support of Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered thirteen Americans in a jihad attack there in November 2009. There have been dozens of such plots thwarted in recent years, and tens of thousands of jihad attacks worldwide. Yet there has been nothing remotely comparable to the intense and obsessive mainstream media coverage that we witnessed immediately after the Norway massacre. There has been no media attempt to determine the motivation behind this explosive plot at Fort Hood or the other jihad attacks. Why aren't Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the BBC, and all the rest just as consumed as they were with the Norwegian killer's supposed motivations? Why aren't they investigating the ideology that incited this Muslim soldier to prepare a jihad attack, especially in light of his stated intent last year to fight "Islamophobia" and promote Islam as a "peaceful religion"?

Ultimately, the arguments that have been used to blame us for the Norway attacks can be used against anyone of any ideological perspective, and strike at the very heart of the freedom of speech. By their logic, no one should be critical of anything, for fear that some evil person will misunderstand that criticism and commit violence because of it. The mainstream media itself can be seen as inciting violence in its sharp criticism of our perspective: the murders of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn, as well as the multiple threats against Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and both of us, amply demonstrate that criticism of anti-jihadists can and does often lead to violence. Should that criticism thus be muted?

The constitutional protection of the freedom of speech is designed to protect controversial speech, including political dissent. Innocuous speech needs no protection. The truths that we enunciate are inconvenient for many to acknowledge, and the principles of freedom for which we stand are increasingly assailed. For that reason alone, the international media should be more circumspect in its demonization of us and our perspective; otherwise they may find, after having silenced all dissenting voices, that there is no one left who is able to stand up for the freedoms they now enjoy.

Original article may be found here.