Jimmy Carter Lays Blame For Women's Rights Infractions

Jimmy Carter believes that religion is to blame for the injustices women endure around the world. Well, not the religions themselves, but the leaders of those religions. According to a recent AP report, “Carter said such teachings by “leaders of Christianity, Islam, and other religions” allow men to beat their wives and deny women their fundamental rights as human beings.”

It’s certainly shocking that he breaks accepted liberal protocol by speaking negatively of Muslims, but it is both unjust and irritating that he chooses to directly juxtapose the crimes of Christianity to the crimes of fundamental Islam as far as women’s rights are concerned.

Despite having existed about two-thirds the life of Christianity, Islam is, both in scope and severity, exponentially more culpable for the subjugation and heinous mistreatment of women.

Are Christians around the world frequently stifling women’s freedom of expression by demanding that they cover all skin apart from their face? Are Christians practicing genital mutilation of young women to smother their sexual desires? Are Christians bartering, selling, and marrying off their daughters at ages as young as nine? Are Christians slaughtering their daughters for tainting the family honor? Are Christians denying women the right to legal defense and, when unjustly condemned, taking them in bondage to village squares so that blood-frenzied townspeople can bludgeon them to death with a bunch of big rocks? And are Christians worldwide raping those condemned women prior to execution in order to eliminate any outside chance of divine salvation?

Are Christians around the world doing these horrible things while claiming the word of God as their sole motivation?

Even Jimmy Carter, whose ineptitude has allowed history to unanimously disgrace him, should know that the answer to all of these questions is an emphatic “no.” But here’s an interesting question for the bumbling ex-president. Have all of these things happened in the Iranian regime that he helped to establish by clearing the lane for Ayatollah Khomeini?

The answer to that question is an unequivocal “yes.” So Christianity is not to blame for such heinous and contemporary abuses of women. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, sort of is.

Jimmy Carter criticizing others for their role in brutal violations against women's rights is the irony of all ironies. I’d ask him to descend from the pulpit of women’s rights considering that he has no right to be there, but his prattling helps to expose the stupidity of his progressive, PC ilk.

So keep on talking, Jimmy. And while you’re at it, endorse Obama in 2012; he could use your support.

William Sullivan

Brendan O'Neill Shreds Liberal Stupidity About the Quran Burning

Yes, Pastor Jones' Quran burning should probably not have taken place. It is far too broad a condemnation, absolutely insensitive, and little more than a rudimentary form of protest that should be beneath sensible Christians or Americans. It is an act that brought those who participated closer to the lower levels of humanity populated by the Muslim fanatics they wanted to denounce.

But ultimately, it was an act of free speech, protected by the United States Constitution, and the calls to blame him for acts of violence overseas are ridiculous.

This is an utterly brilliant analogy conveying that very point. Enjoy.

William

Pastor Terry Jones is no more to blame for the Afghan violence than Martin Scorsese was for the shooting of Ronald Reagan

The American pastor Terry Jones might be a bit of a weirdo with an unhealthy obsession with the Koran, but he’s right about one thing: he is not responsible for the fatal rioting in Afghanistan. His burning of the Koran can no more be blamed for those acts of violence than Martin Scorsese can be blamed for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981. (Reagan’s wannabe assassin, John Hinckley Jnr, claimed to have been inspired by Taxi Driver.) The feverish attempts to pin the blame for the Afghan instability on Pastor Jones demonises freedom of speech as something terrifying, even murderous, and it treats Muslims as brainless, wide-eyed automatons who can’t be held responsible for their actions.

Jones’s burning of the Koran was daft. But it did not directly cause “the tragic, deadly violence” in Afghanistan, as one Pentagon spokesman claimed. To suggest that it did, to argue that Jones has “blood on his hands”, as the New York Daily News put it, is to overlook the fact that there is an important bridge between words and actions. That bridge is us, people, the audience, the public, who are possessed of free will and thought and who must make a decision about whether, and how, to act on the words we hear. The idea that words lead directly to action, that the image of a burning Koran in the US leads inevitably to violence in Afghanistan, is to cut out these middle men and present speech as an all-powerful force that dictates world events.

Such an outlook is dangerous for two reasons. First because there would be no limits to the curbing and policing of speech if we all bought into the mad notion that it can directly cause other people’s deaths. If words really are so dangerous, then surely they should be treated as just another weapon, like gun and knives, whose usage must be tightly controlled by the cops and powers-that-be? Already, post-Koran controversy, some Democratic politicians in the US are hinting that the First Amendment, which guarantees free expression, might need to be rethought, since certain forms of speech “endanger the lives of a lot of innocent people”. The consequence of calling into question the free will of people who hear or read certain words is to generate an Orwellian rush to clamp down on anything judged to be “problematic speech”.

And the second problem with the “blame Jones” brigade is that it lets rioting Afghans off the hook. It says they’re not really responsible for the bloodshed they unleashed; Jones is. There’s a great irony here, because many of the commentators who make this argument do so in order to express their apparently enlightened and cosmopolitan sympathy with beleaguered Muslims in Afghanistan, yet in the process they patronisingly depict Afghans as overgrown children, as attack dogs almost, who hear a command or see an offensive image and act on it, robot-like. Modern-day liberal pity for Muslims would seem to be a comfortable bedfellow of the old-world colonial outlook: in both instances Third World people are treated as hapless, helpless creatures who must have their eyes and ears shielded from dodgy ideas.

The consequences of taking this approach to the Koran controversy are potentially dire. Just as in the Muhammad cartoons controversy, Western liberal politicians and thinkers are giving Muslims a licence to feel offended, a licence to go crazy; they are effectively legitimising violent responses to offensive images by saying: “It’s understandable. This is what happens when we fail to respect their culture.” Given a green light by self-flagellating Western observers, who will be surprised if groups of Muslims behave in a similar fashion next time someone pulps a Koran or depicts Muhammad as a goat?

Original article may be found at: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100082375/pastor-terry-jones-is-no-more-to-blame-for-the-afghan-violence-than-martin-scorsese-was-for-the-shooting-of-ronald-reagan/

Obama Follis: A Short Comedy

A Short Mock Play in One Act

Cast of Characters-
Chorus: A Voice of reason
Barack Obama: President of the United States
America: People of the United States

Act I

Chorus: Where to begin on the Obama administration and the Middle East? The whole thing smacks of the most delicious irony one could imagine.

Some time ago, Iran cried foul when its election appeared rigged and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was elected over his more progressive counterpart. Ahmedinejad was guilty of numerous human rights violations against the multitudes of protesters, who merely wanted to ensure that the democratic election was on the level. The Iranian people cried out to the American president, and he had to take a stance...

[Enter Barack] Barack [to America]: We need to just keep our nose out of this Iran thing. After all, who could possibly imagine that a faux-democratic theocracy run by the mullahs would rig an election to maintain power and continue their efforts to destroy Israel? We are not at war with Islam, you know. Perhaps we should just turn a blind eye...

Chorus: And so Obama proved that he's just not that interested in democracy after all, leading the People to believe that maybe he was serious when he said that bringing democracy to Iraq was a fool's endeavor. But then, Egypt erupted.

America: Barack, there's some guys protesting in Egypt against that Mubarak guy that has kept relative peace with Israel for like thirty years.
Barack: That guy has got to go! When the people call for change, we must answer the call of history and assist them. [Aside, to audience] Pay no mind to the fact that the group protesting Mubarak's authority in Cairo is one-fifth the size of the one those gun- and God-clingers amassed in Washington, D.C. last year.

[Weeks pass, and Barack leads political campaign against Mubarak. Mubarak resigns.]

Barack: So Mubarak is out, all signs point to the Muslim Brotherhood being in. And that is not a bad thing, because we are not at war with Islam, after all. Democracy wins!
America: Well done, Barack!

Chorus: Only problem is, the Muslim Brotherhood bases their ideology on the Hasan Al-Banna 1928 treatise, Jihad. Here's a small taste of it: "It is fard (obligatory) on us to fight with the enemies. The Imam must send a military expedition to the Dar-al-Harb {House of War -- the non-Muslim world} every year at least once or twice, and the people must support him in this." So despite the President's assurances, some among the People became unsettled at the thought that even when there's peace, they could expect attacks from the Islamic fundamentalists of Egypt, considering that simply being a non-Muslim is enough justification to do so. And some began to wonder if the treaty Israel has with Egypt would be upheld, when suddenly...

America: But, wait, look over there! Libya is following the example of other Middle Eastern countries and calling for democracy. What should we do with that Gaddafi guy?
Barack: Get him out of there, of course!
America: But Barack, who will replace this government?
Barack: The people of Libya will decide that.
America: But Barack, don't the people of Libya hate Europeans, Americans, and Israel? Isn't there a strong al-Qaeda presence there?
Barack: We don't know that for sure. American fear-mongers might say that because Libyans are primarily Muslims. But we are not at war with Islam.
America: [aside, so as not to be heard by many] Yeah, but it sure seems like most of those guys chanting "Death to America" say "Allahu Akhbar" a lot...

Chorus: And so commenced the "coalition" military effort against the Libyan government. At this, a confused America began to reflect...

America [to Barack]: Didn't you say that George Bush acted illegally when he acted with 30 countries in coalition to initiate the Iraq War? Now you are engaging in similar militaristic democracy shaping with the support of only 16? What gives?
Barack [to America]: You should be proud of what I've done. We've saved Libyan lives from a ruthless dictator who was ready to direct his armed forces against his people.
America: But didn't Saddam Hussein ruthlessly murder his own people and unleash chemical weapons upon hundreds of thousands of Kurdish Muslims?
Barack: That was different.
America: How?
Barack: In Libya, there will be no ground troops. I will show Gaddafi that I mean business, but will let him know that I will not exert effort beyond a certain point if it may make it easier for my opposition to draw a parallel between my regime and the Bush administration. That way, we can appear to be serious about human rights, but we will also not upset the Islamic world too much. We're not at war with Islam, you know. Now if you'll excuse me, all these questions and people wanting me to say stuff is really cutting into my family's vacation time in South America.
America: Oh yeah, sorry about that, Mr. President. [Exeunt Barack] Oh well. I wonder how things are with that Charlie Sheen? He's one crazy cat...

Chorus: And so, Barack Obama plods onward, leading the American people down the path he has laid: spend lots of money at home, confuse your enemies by acting tough while apologizing for being tough, and for God's sake, don't mention that we could be fighting the forces of Islamic fundamentalism.

There is a certain irony that negates any tragedy in this tale. Whereas in the tragedy of Oedipus the King the hero is blinded as the result of his tragic fall, Barack Obama rose to power and reigns as a result of, and in spite of, his blindness. The outcome of which is the dark comedy of current American politics.

Finis

William Sullivan

Still Batting .1000 Against Fundamentalist Islam, Robert Spencer Hits Another Pair of Homeruns

Robert Spencer has made a living socking dingers off the weak rhetoric of Islamic apologists in Western culture. And if you missed it, his latest two were pretty impressive.

Barack Obama sent his national security advisor, Denis McDonough, to quell the fury of protesters who claim that the Congressional hearings on Islamic radicalism "unfairly single out Muslims as potential terrorists."

McDonough said to a Washington-area mosque: "Being religious is never un-American. Being religious is quintessentially American."

To which the venerable Robert Spencer replies on his website, JihadWatch.org:

Really? Being religious in any way? Then why was the Waco compound besieged and burned down? Why was Mormon polygamy outlawed? Jim Jones was a terrific fellow?

The U.S. has in the past identified ways in which being religious might be harmful to the national security. Now we face a threat from people who commit violence and explain and justify their actions by reference to the texts and teachings of a particular religion, and the White House is saying that any investigation of that is out of the question. Will this not have the effect of ensuring that the unexamined, unresisted behavior will continue?

McDonough served him up, so Robert smacked it 380 feet over the left field wall.

In a separate at-bat, Spencer expands upon the undeniable fact that the government is entirely selective about which religions it prosecutes or protects. He references that a 17 year old Islamic protester named Anam Chaudhry, who “pointedly wrapped herself in an American flag,” said "I'm not some sort of alien. I'm like everyone else... It's a shame that some people can't see that. But we come in peace."

It’s safe to assume that Robert expected the gist of what Anam had to say. He’s been in the game long enough to know that an Islamic apologist calling everyone else intolerant is the only pitch they can bring: high, inside heat meant to scare the batter enough to back out of the box altogether. But Spencer has learned to hit it with gusto. He just digs in, and responds:

Does Anam Chaudhry, wrapped up in her flag, really think that Congressional hearings about jihad activity in the U.S. actually threaten her? Why? If there were an armed group of Christian terrorists plotting violence in the U.S. and justifying them by reference to Bible texts, and a Congressmen held hearings about the radicalization of Christians, would non-radical Christians feel threatened? Should they feel threatened? Or might the claim that such hearings did indeed threaten non-radical Christians be an attempt at fearmongering by the radicals, designed to intimidate those holding the hearings into being too afraid of public pressure to accomplish anything useful?

450 feet over the center field fence. And I’m sure in his next at-bat, he’ll hit another homerun. It’s getting so that we don’t wonder if he will hit one off of these scrubs, we just wonder how far.

We’re witnessing some of the most amazing stuff ever. Robert Spencer should be a national icon, a hero for his work in exposing fundamental Islam. It’s clear, there’s just nothing that that fundamentalist Muslims or Islamic apologists can say that can stop his hellacious assault of logic and reason!

So why are all the cheers and accolades for his performance so muffled? It’s because so few of us are actually in the stadium watching the game. Millions of drones are sitting in awe next door, watching Obama’s grandiose, staged performance, complete with politically correct clowns and jugglers of the truth.

William Sullivan

Our "One-trick Pony" in Chief

When President Obama tackled the economic crisis in early 2009 via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, what was his plan of action?

More money, and more reform.

When President Obama tackled the problems with the rising cost of healthcare, what did he offer as a solution?

More money, and more reform.

It's clear that Biggie had it right when he said, "mo money, mo problems." Because problems is all we've gotten from Obama spending all of our money that we haven't made yet. Despite the Recovery Act, banks still have deficits and still don't lend. Sure, some fish hatcheries (pp. 123) in our national parks did get stocked. (for $165MM, by the way) But is that worth the billions we owe to foreign interests? What did the money and reform in healthcare give us? Fewer insurance policies being offered, a few thousand more IRS agents to breathe down our necks, and government administrated student loans.

Now, President Obama sees that there is a problem with American education. Here are the only facts of the case that matter. Since 1970, spending on education has tripled. Since 1970, quality of education has waned, and we are being surpassed by the rest of the world in terms of education.

What does that tell the sane individual? That throwing money at the problem is not working.

What does that tell Barack Obama? That we just haven't been throwing enough money at the problem. Oh, and we haven't reformed enough, either.

"People started to realize what is needed is not either, or -- not either more money or more reform, it's both. Both more money and more reform."

Yeah, you've suggested that before, Mr. President. But that's not what people are starting to realize. They're starting to realize that "Mo Money, Mo Reform" is the only thing you know how to suggest, and though it might have worked in the cesspool of Chicagoland in your community organizing days, it is not a viable economic strategy for our nation. It just puts us deeper in debt.

Oh, and a news flash, Mr. President: Americans don't like it.

William Sullivan

The Platitudes of Pigs

When you consider how well his musings peg the Obama administration, George Orwell seems more prophet than pundit. And Michelle Obama's farcical anti-obesity campaign draws an interesting parallel to one of his predictions.

We Americans realize that Michelle Obama thinks that she and the others in her husband's administration know better what is right for us and our children than we do, but it is incredibly insulting that she, her husband, and her children routinely enjoy a diet of expensive and often unhealthy foods while she tries to mandate that we routinely stuff bland carrots and celery sticks in our children’s craws.

You see, it's not just the fact that she routinely eats this stuff that makes it irritating-- it's the elitism and hypocrisy of it all. And Orwell pointed out the danger in accepting such inequality over sixty years ago.

Eating good-tasting and unhealthy food is an enjoyable vice for many Americans, First family included. Some people indulge too much or too often, as one could with any vice. But consider what Orwell had to say about vice and the ruling class. In Animal Farm, the ruling class of pigs forbids all consumption of alcohol among the members of the farm. Of course, what applies to the masses does not apply to the ruling class, so the pigs indulge in their own vices by frequently getting drunk in the farmhouse.

Then consider that the Obamas tell us that Americans need to tighten their belts and eat healthier, only to host lavish galas with copious amounts of unhealthy food and drink in their farmhouse, even as the economy is crumbling. The actions of Orwell’s “pigs” parallel those of our own "pigs" perfectly.

But the correlation doesn't end there. Note that in Animal Farm, anytime the lesser animals would question the pigs' actions, a pig by the name of Squealer would always come up with wild defenses of the ruling class. Well, the Obamas seem to have legions of their own "Squealers."

Recently, Michelle Obama came under conservative fire for eating a lavish meal of short ribs, a delicacy not normally known for its healthy qualities. But Randy Wyrick of Vail Daily quickly defended her order of "braised short ribs" as a healthy choice for the First Lady. "A braised short rib is a relatively lean cut of beef, braised with most of the fat cooked off. The 5-ounce serving runs about 600 calories, Liken said-- a far cry from the 1,500 calories it is accused of."

This information came from restaurateur Kelly Liken’s mouth, so we can go out on a limb and assume it’s true, despite the fact that other sources lay a serving of braised short ribs with a tally of 1,060 calories and 200% of a recommended daily intake of saturated fat. Of course, to do this, we also have to overlook that she was clearly enamored with the First Lady and would likely not want to damage her image or her health campaign, making Liken another possible “Squealer.” But though this might be enough to quell the conservative backlash, Wyrick frantically continues his defense to the point of ridiculousness.

He goes on to say, "A skier will burn off about 6,000 calories during the course of the day." So even if you don't buy that braised short-ribs are healthy, she's burning off well more calories than the critics say she's taking in. But of course, by that logic, cheeseburgers and fries must not be altogether bad choices for children, as they have much higher metabolic rates than adults and tend to be more active, meaning they more quickly burn calories and burn them more often. But increased activity doesn’t make cheeseburgers any healthier for kids, and it certainly wouldn’t make the hypocrisy of Michelle’s choice any easier to digest.

In the closing argument of his defense, Wyrick reminds us that she ate the ribs with a knife and fork, as if that should somehow change our opinion of the nutritional content of the meal. As if to say that what she did is nothing like a fat American eating ribs with his hands; it’s much more health-conscious and respectable.

It’s seems clear that he would say just about any damn thing to defend Michelle Obama.

But let’s be honest. Most of us really don’t care what the Obamas eat, though we’d certainly like for them to be a bit more frugal considering that battered taxpayers are picking up the checks. I think we’d settle to just have Barack and Michelle keep their noses in their own troughs, rather than demanding that Americans live in a way that they themselves would not.

William Sullivan

As The World Burns...

The Middle East is in a state of unprecedented upheaval that could plunge the world into war. Europe is in chaos due to vast budget shortfalls. Oil prices are poised to breach the ceiling previously known. The dollar is primed for collapse, and several currencies are being touted as a possible new trading standard.

Meanwhile, in America, public sector unions are fighting for their life to retain the influence they hold in deciding how public money will be spent. And their supporters are pulling out all the stops. Pro-union lawmakers are going AWOL and shirking the civic responsibility they have sworn to uphold. Our pro-union president is seeking to apply his federal influence in the fray, though he has no Constitutional right to do so. And pro-union lawmakers call for blood in the streets to get what they want.

But aside from unscrupulous union supporters, what is being done in Wisconsin is exactly how our government was meant to work. The state's budget shortfall has been directly linked to the collective bargaining rights of the unions in that state: strong-arming unions manipulated politicians to promise more in deferred benefits than it is possible to pay now that the bill is due. To reconcile this, officials have been elected by the people to plug the fiscal hole that the unions have created. To do this, Governor Walker of Wisconsin has suggested that public servants begin contributing 5.8% to their own pension funds, and that they pay for 12% of their healthcare premiums. Oh yeah, and the unions have to give up the collective bargaining rights that led to this mess in the first place.

This is all to be voted upon by elected officials, and it is constitutionally sound. Consider this to be our republic's way of giving shareholders, i.e., taxpayers, a say in how the business they have invested in is run.

Democrats are crying foul in this instance because Republican leaning police and firefighters in Wisconsin were not asked to make any such adjustments. It is as if they believe that unions and the entire public sector of Wisconsin should all be subject to equal accountability for the collective public pension problems, regardless of which segment caused the problems or which segments have performed better than others. (Need more proof that Democrats today are socialists?) But the fact is, it is entirely possible that the state funded teachers' pension is collapsing while that may not be the case for firefighters and cops who rely on city or county pensions.

The municipal troubles in our nation are incredibly different everywhere you look, so the problems in Wisconsin do not necessarily translate to problems in California, while problems in California don't necessarily translate to problems in Texas. And beyond that, Texas' problems don't necessarily translate to Dallas or Houston's problems. And even further beyond that, Houston firefighters' problems don't necessarily translate to Houston police officers' problems.

The issue certainly isn't black and white. So we need to be reasonable, and allow each city and state to take their own approach to handle the problems with public sector pay and benefits based on the type and severity of each problem. However, we also need to be steadfast in addressing these problems, because is clear that most municipalities, if not all, do have problems that endanger taxpayers.

If there is one universal flaw in public compensation, it is the very notion of the defined benefit. There can be no question that defined benefits cannot exist with birth rates and life expentancies as they are* without perpetually increasing tax liabilty. In my opinion, they must be amended across the board in favor of defined contribution plans. How quickly that transition must take place will depend upon the solvency, or lack thereof, of each municipality.

But we who would seek to amend troubled defined benefit programs are not calling for blood in the streets like the pro-union Democratic legislators that are so quick to decry the "hate speech" on talk radio while implicitly suggesting pure violence in the name of their cause. As much as we in the private sector would like to end public sector unions' noxious existence, we instead choose to elect politicians that would fulfill our wishes constitutionally, and right each ship, respectively.

And Walker is just doing what he was elected by the people to do; right the fiscal ship of Wisconsin. Of course, given that there are idiots among the protesting teachers holding signs that say "Egypt supports Wisconsin workers," maybe the proper action for Walker should be to just fire them all and hire from among the millions of unemployed to take their place. If teachers there think that protesting against a ~5% contribution to the retirement fund they will eventually collect is anything like revolting against a Middle Eastern Islamic dictatorship, the replacements could not possibly be any dumber than the teachers they already employ.

William Sullivan

* William G. Shipman, a leading global expert regarding Social Security, is one of many voices heralding the unsustainable nature of defined benefit plans, and is currently working with legislators to reform Social Security for the private sector. You will find incredible evidence of the flawed nature of defined benefits in today's world here.