A Much More Fitting Apology for Quran Burnings in Afghanistan

President Obama recently apologized to President Karzai of Afghanistan for our military, whose soldiers burned copies of the Quran that contained secret messages- messages covertly being passed along between captured Taliban. Granted, it's become natural for us to expect calls to violence and murder when fundamentalist Islamic sects perceive any insult to the prophet or his revelations, and even more natural for this president to lay American honor prostrate before a world only too eager to condemn us.

But this apology is much more fitting, I think.

Who's Raping Who, Occupy? Olbermann and Breitbart Duke It Out

Andrew Breitbart doesn't like the Occupy movement.  Keith Olbermann couldn't love it more. These two just can't get along.

I smell a sitcom!

Breitbart has taken issue with the number of sexual indiscretions (just rapes, mostly) that have taken place at Occupy locations, and according to Keith Olbermann's impressive rant here, he's falsely accusing Occupiers as the perpetrators of said crimes rather than properly focusing on the fact that Occupiers are, in many cases, simply victims of the crimes.

I have to say it- and I rarely do- but I agree with Olbermann here. Breitbart's evidence does seem a tad on the inflated side. Tick a point for Olbermann, who all but lost me a couple of years ago when his best argument to prove allegations of racism in the Tea Party was, "How come there ain't no black faces?" Well done, Keith.

Thing is, it seems that Breitbart is working overtime to discredit Occupy. But please, America, for the love of God, Buddha, the ever-expanding cosmos, whatever you believe in, PLEASE stop assuming that it requires hyperbole or slander to discredit the Occupy movement. These guys are shitting on flags, turning beautiful taxpayer-funded parks into sewers, calling for immediate forgiveness of all debt (c'mon, do us a solid, China!) and saying that having a house- that's right, one of those things your parents saved for years to get- is a human right. These people do not "occupy" reality, and they fail to meet the basic levels of reason required to be a human being.

C'mon Andrew, Keith. Can't we just let bygones be bygones and just say that your little feud is pure partisanship, and just all agree that Occupy discredited itself a long time ago?

William Sullivan

The Politics of Breast Cancer Prevention

A Letter Sent to Susan G. Komen for the Cure:

To Whom It May Concern:


I have donated many times to your organization, and I firmly believe in cancer prevention and research. However, I have recently made the decision to end all donation to your organization until such time that I can be certain that my donations will be used specifically for that purpose, and that no portion of my donations will be used for other purposes, particularly by Planned Parenthood. I will urge others to do the same.

I have a deep disagreement with the practices of Planned Parenthood. It is not a matter of being or pro-life or pro-choice. I ask that you consider that it is not simply pro-life groups and individuals that oppose Susan G. Komen providing funding to Planned Parenthood. The morality of the practice of abortion aside, I believe Planned Parenthood preys on vulnerable and impressionable young women, coaxing them into abortions with the skill of used car salesmen. I have heard firsthand accounts of young, conflicted women being frightened by Planned Parenthood employees about the loss of social freedom a child brings, limited career opportunities, cost of diapers, shoes, etc. This is manipulative and unethical, especially given the nature of the emotional and personal choice each of these young women is facing.

Statistics show that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's revenue generation is created by a business model of selling/providing abortions. The revenue funding this business is not segregated from Planned Parenthood's general account, which is why the group is under federal investigation- accused of using federal dollars from the Treasury to provide for abortions. To demand that all Americans provide, even in the slightest capacity, funding for the controversial practice is unethical, and currently, there is a clear question as to whether it is lawful.

Furthermore, a founding figure of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger. Now, despite the ignorance of your average advocate of Planned Parenthood about this misunderstood figure, I have read much of her work. I know that she advanced the notion of eugenics, supported the sterilization of the racially and genetically "unfit," and the abortion of their children when contraception failed. These are the very ideas that, when put into strict practice, led to the ethnic cleansing of Europe under Nazi Germany. You might be apt to call this hyperbole, as this is all forgotten when one tries to paint Sanger as a "women's rights" figure, but should you feel compelled to do this, I suggest you pick up some copies of her work, and I would challenge anyone to refute the claim. As a women's advocacy group, you should be compelled to educate women about the origins of Planned Parenthood rather than propagating the group for the political benefit it affords you.

That said, I do believe in all Americans' right to donate to Planned Parenthood. Charitable donations are a matter of personal choice. I intend to exercise mine by seeing to it that I do not donate a dime to your organization until you can guarantee donors that funds will be used for specifically the purposes of cancer treatment and prevention.

With the utmost sincerity,

William J. Sullivan II

All in a Day's Work: Obama Kills Keystone XL Pipeline, Thousands of Jobs, and Millions in Public Revenue in One Fell Swoop

It now appears that the Obama administration will reject the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Business Insider reports:

The administration will be unlikely to approve the pipeline under the timeline for the payroll tax cut extension law which requires a decision by February 21

The project has been extremely controversial for two main reasons. Those in favor of the pipeline point to the 8.5% unemployment rate, and point out that the pipeline could create much-needed high-paying jobs. Moreover, it would provide cash-strapped governments with tax revenues. On the other hand after the BP Deepwater spill of 2010 and ExxonMobil's July 2011 pipeline spill, environmentalists are pressuring the Obama administration to nip the project in the bud.

Let's review. The project will provide "much-needed high paying jobs" in a time of excessive unemployment.  That's good for the private sector.  The project would also increase tax revenues.  That's good for the public sector.  It's good for small-government conservatives and big-government progressives alike. It is ready-made middle ground to boost employment and lessen public debt, no negotiation necessary.

Yet Obama will kill the project because environmentalist kooks don't like oil, and because they fear another accident might take place.

 

It would be nice if ideological bulwarks paid the bills- but they don't. I cannot just stop going to work because I don't like traffic and I have been in a car accident before. But that's the real world that we live in- Obama and his far-left zealots do not occupy it. He lives in a world where $4 million dollar family vacations grow on public money trees and another trillion in debt is just "stimulus." 

 

And now, thousands of Americans will remain unemployed by Obama's hand. State coffers that provide for teachers, police, firefighters, and their pension funds are in dire need of revenue to remain afloat- Obama has ensured that they get millions less than they could potentially have. He is willfully suppressing job growth and depressing government revenues to appease the environmentalist fringe.

Independent voters, are you paying attention?

 

William Sullivan

"War is Hell." So Why Do We Expect That Our Soldiers Be Saints?

I understand that our soldiers are held to a much higher moral standard than soldiers of other nations, and certainly higher than that of the fantatical and barbaric insurgents in our current zones of conflict.  But I think in the public indignation over the marines that urinated on Taliban corpses, we forget something. It's easy to harness your emotions when the most aggravating thing in your day is your boss making you work late. It might be harder to do so while battling a subversive and bloodthirsty enemy that makes no bones about killing you at all costs.

The Taliban is already employing the most effective and violent measures in combatting our soldiers, and our soldiers endure that reality on a daily basis.  Yet the criticism of our enemies' use of such measures is implied, rarely voiced.  When the opportunity arises to demonize our own soldiers for a momentary lapse of judgment, however, Western voices are only too eager to offer their harshest criticism- and as loudly as possible.

Rep. Allen West addresses this anomaly in flawless fashion in an email to The Weekly Standard, seen below, original found here.  And on behalf of America and our soldiers that are often happily targeted by our media pundits, thank you, Mr. West.

William Sullivan

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah. 

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq? 

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.” 

The Bleak Prospects of Our Search for Palestinian Moderates

“Moderate” Palestinians.  Western voices attest to their existence any time that Palestinian aggression, anti-Semitism, and refusal to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty is cited.  They assert that somewhere, hidden in the streets bearing the names of murderous Palestinian terrorists and speckled in the throngs of shouting rabble calling for death and destruction in Israel, they exist in vast numbers, ready to emerge and assert their rational influence in the peace process.

Though one can't rationally argue that there are not singular examples of moderates within the populations of those who call themselves Palestinians, it's safe to say that the notion that they exist in large numbers is pure bunk.   

First of all, it has proven impossible to locate even a single moderate among Palestinian leadership.  Most often cited as the most convincing example of Palestinian moderation is Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority.  To really believe he is a moderate, however, requires an incredible leap from reality.  Abbas earned his doctorate by justifying Holocaust denial.  He has offered generous pensions to the families of suicide bombers and endorsed the execution of Palestinians who sell property to Jews. And his position on the matter of Israeli sovereignty is entirely unilateral, not moderate. In past negotiations, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made the generous offer to concede "95% of the land conquered in response to Jordan's offensive against Israel."  Abbas demanded it all.  Now, he is demanding all of it again, threatening "harsh measures" if Israel does not comply.

And as Isi Leibler laments in the Jerusalem Post, "Unfortunately, all opinion polls demonstrate that the Palestinian masses have been brainwashed and endorse these views."

And looking at the actions of the Palestinian general populace is truly disheartening, as the murderous overtones are much less subtle. Consider that last year, upon the savage murder of the Fogel family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar, the common reaction among Palestinians was not horror, but celebration- complete with the distribution of candy to local Palestinian children. Or perhaps consider that while Israelis celebrated the release of Gilad Shalit, Palestinians celebrated the release of murderous prisoners and exalted them as heroes. Among these released Palestinian terrorists was the “mastermind of the 2001 bombing” of a Sbarro’s pizzeria in Jerusalem that killed fifteen innocents. Also released was the ringleader of a lynch mob that, after brutally murdering an Israeli, was photographed presenting his bloodstained hands to a crowd of cheering Palestinians. This murderer, particularly, was lucky enough to collect a second round of accolades for this evil deed upon his release.

Jonathan S. Tobin offers a reason for this twisted behavior. He suggests that during the Second Intifada, “mass slaughter became not only a tool of war but the touchstone of a people’s identity.” And that identity is not only well-evidenced in Palestinian actions, but also in their cultural and intellectual mediums.

In their new book, “Deception: Betraying the Peace Process,” Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Ziberdik relate that the Palestinian magazine Zayzafuna is a generally “positive and educational” publication that enjoys funding by the Palestinian Authority. However:

These positive messages are directed at Palestinian society, Muslims, Christians and Druze. When it comes to portraying Israel and Jews, Zayzafuna changes its tone and includes items glorifying Jihad against Israel and praising Martyrdom death for Allah, and the Martyrs themselves.

Indicative of this anti-Semitic slant is a selected essay published by the magazine, written by a teenage girl. The essay describes a dream the child had, where she was visited by such Islamic icons as Al-Khwarizmi, who stressed the importance of “Islamic sciences,” Naguib Mahfouz, who stressed the importance of making use of one’s time, Saladin, who unsurprisingly suggested a new liberation of Jerusalem, and a rather oddly included bedfellow, Adolf Hitler.

Upon meeting Hitler in her dream, she asks him, “You’re the one who killed the Jews?” Hitler responds, “Yes. I killed them so that you would all know that they are a nation that spreads destruction all over the world. And what I ask of you is to be resilient and patient, concerning the suffering that Palestine is experiencing at their hands.” She thanks Hitler for the advice, which she finds sound, and her rationalization of the Holocaust is something that the Palestinian Authority and the magazine’s editors find suitable for publication in their educational endeavors.

To call such things "moderate" is an absolute travesty.

I truly hope that moderate Palestinian voices can be found and heard, and I hope they will be instrumental in crafting a peace where Palestine and Israel can coexist.  But all of the evidence our search has uncovered thus far has made optimism difficult to muster.

William Sullivan

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.