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.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Deconstructing Islam's Template of Perfection
Labels: conservative, liberal, politics
andrew bostom,
brigitte gabriel,
fundamental islam,
islam,
muhammad,
pamela geller,
perfect man of islam,
powerpoint,
robert spencer,
slideshow
Saturday, November 12, 2011
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
-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
Labels: conservative, liberal, politics
1%,
obama,
occupy wall street,
wealth distribution
Saturday, November 5, 2011
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
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
Labels: conservative, liberal, politics
arab,
fundamental islam,
john quincy adams,
muhammad
Monday, October 31, 2011
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:
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
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
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
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.
Labels: conservative, liberal, politics
9-9-9,
corporate tax,
federal,
herman cain,
income tax,
sales tax,
santorum,
taxes
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
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
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
Labels: conservative, liberal, politics
2012,
bill clinton,
budget debate,
clinton,
election,
healthcare,
herman cain,
hillarycare,
obama,
townhall,
youtube
Friday, October 7, 2011
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
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
Labels: conservative, liberal, politics
ballistic,
draft dodge,
herman cain,
lawrence o'donnell,
msnbc,
navy,
race,
vietnam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





