Q: Why Do They Hate Us? A: Lady Gaga

One reality that Americans need to come to grips with when thinking about the danger of radical Islam is that the reason that Islamists hate us has very little to do with our current foreign policy or our alliance with Israel (or what’s left of it now that Obama has been put in charge); rather, the core of the issue between America and the Islamists goes to the fundamental question of who we are, and the fact that our lives and society aren’t dictated by the principles of Islam:

Lady Gaga
I always knew that she was an existential threat to the United States...

Now consider Lady Gaga—or, if you prefer, Madonna, Farrah Fawcett, Marilyn Monroe, Josephine Baker or any other American woman who has, at one time or another, personified what the Egyptian Islamist writer Sayyid Qutb once called “the American Temptress.”

Qutb, for those unfamiliar with the name, is widely considered the intellectual godfather of al Qaeda; his 30-volume exegesis “In the Shade of the Quran” is canonical in jihadist circles. But Qutb, who spent time as a student in Colorado in the late 1940s, also decisively shaped jihadist views about the U.S.

In his 1951 essay “The America I Have Seen,” Qutb gave his account of the U.S. “in the scale of human values.” “I fear,” he wrote, “that a balance may not exist between America’s material greatness and the quality of her people.” Qutb was particularly exercised by what he saw as the “primitiveness” of American values, not least in matters of sex.

“The American girl,” he noted, “knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she shows all this and does not hide it.” Nor did he approve of Jazz—”this music the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires”—or of American films, or clothes, or haircuts, or food. It was all, in his eyes, equally wretched.

Qutb’s disdain for America’s supposedly libertine culture would not matter much were it not wedded to a kind of theological Leninism that emphasized the necessity of violently overthrowing any political arrangement not based on Shariah law.

Remember – it’s not so much about what we do, it’s about who we are. Of course, none of this is to defend the cultural or social value of Lady Gaga; goodness knows she has very little if any of that.  But we must remember that they hate us primarily because we possess the freedom that can allow a Lady Gaga-type to appear and thrive.  That’s the core of the issue.

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

WB Yeats – 1919

Democrats Lie. It’s Just What They Do.

Liars:

Basically, this is an admission that the numbers the Democrats submitted to the CBO were entirely false, and that they plan to make this bill a deficit expander in the spring.  It’s a breathtaking admission of deceit and hypocrisy — and its exposure should have the media asking more questions about that CBO scoring and putting Democrats in the hot seat over it.

Obama’s Swindle

In an ideal world, we would actually listen to Thomas Sowell and would thus avoid a ton of economic and social pain.  Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world.  At NRO, Sowell points out something that needs to be understood far and wide:

In a swindle that would make Bernie Madoff look like an amateur, Barack Obama has gotten a substantial segment of the population to believe that he can add millions of people to the government-insured rolls without increasing the already record-breaking federal deficit.

Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is actually smart and worth listening to

EXACTLY.  This whole “debate” that we’re having over “health care reform” consists of Obama and his Democrat spirit squad asserting things that simply aren’t true (we’re gonna do this without adding a dime to the deficit; you won’t have to change your insurance plan if you don’t like it; our reform will actually control costs; etc); conservatives pointing out and demonstrating that the Democrat assertions aren’t true; and Obama and his Democrat spirit squad simply asserting the same things over again, as if repetition will make it true.  At this point, it’s no stretch to say that Obama is simply a bald-faced liar, as are his minions in Congress like Reid and Pelosi.

The Obama health-care plan can be financed without increasing the federal deficit — if the administration takes hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare. But Medicare itself does not have enough money to pay its own way over time.

However money is juggled in the short run, the government’s financial liabilities are increased by adding this huge new entitlement of government-provided insurance. The fact that these new financial liabilities can be kept out of the official federal deficit projection, by claiming that they will be paid for with money taken from Medicare, changes nothing in the real world.

I can say that I can afford to buy a Rolls Royce, without going into debt, by using my inheritance from a rich uncle. But, in the real world, the question would arise immediately whether I in fact have a rich uncle, not to mention whether this hypothetical rich uncle would be likely to leave me enough money to buy a Rolls Royce.

They are lying.  They’re simply lying.

An even more transparent gimmick is collecting money for the new Obama health-care program for the first ten years but delaying the payments of its benefits for four years. By collecting money for ten years and spending it for only six years, you can make the program look self-supporting, but only on paper and only in the short run.

This is a game you can play just once, during the first decade. After that, you are going to be collecting money for ten years and paying out money for ten years. That is when you discover that your uncle doesn’t have enough money to support himself, much less leave you an inheritance to pay for a Rolls Royce.

But a postponed revelation is not part of the official federal deficit today. And that provides a talking point, in order to soothe people who take talking points seriously.

“Fraud has been at the heart of this medical-care takeover plan from Day One.”  Sowell is right.  We’re “reforming” health care through a process so dishonest and corrupt, if it was the sale of a used car all 50 state Attorneys General would be all over it like stink on a monkey.  Feel good about this yet?

This Might Be Worth Considering

Timothy P. Cahill
Timothy P. Cahill

Timothy P. Cahill, Treasurer of the State of Massachusetts (and now Independent Gubernatorial Candidate) has some not-so-swell things to say about Romneycare and some even not-so-sweller things to say about the potential of Obamacare:

The Massachusetts treasurer said Tuesday that Congress will “threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years” if it adopts a health-care overhaul modeled after the Bay State’s.

Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill – a former Democrat running as an independent for governor – said the local plan enacted in 2006 has succeeded only because of huge subsidies and favorable regulatory changes from the federal government.

“Who, exactly, is going to bail out the federal government if this plan goes national?” he asked…

…He also gave reporters a copy of a recent state ledger sheet, showing the state’s Medicaid program ballooning from $7.5 billion to a projected $9.2 billion since the plan was adopted. Meanwhile, of the 407,000 newly insured, only 32 percent paid for private insurance wholly by themselves.

The remainder have received partial or total taxpayer subsidies to buy the insurance coverage required by the plan.

Wow – this thing just keeps sounding better and better! I sure hope that our mini-tyrants in Congress keep trying to force it down our throats by any means necessary in order to honor FDR or whatever.  Because after all, who needs doctors anyway when you can pass LANDMARK, HISTORIC LEGISLATION?

Via PowerLine

So What Do Doctors Think About “Health Care Reform”?

Noted over at JedEckert.com:

  • 46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.
  • 72% of physicians feel that a public option would have a negative impact on physician supply, with 45% feeling it will “decline or worsen dramatically” and 27% predicting it will “decline or worsen somewhat.
  • 24% of physicians think they will try to retire early if a public option is implemented.
  • 62.7% of physicians feel that health reform is needed but should be implemented in a more targeted, gradual way, as opposed to the sweeping overhaul that is in legislation.

What’s The Point, Suicide Squad?

Ramesh Ponnuru makes a point that I’ve been thinking of since the weekend, which is – what difference does it make if the dems use the Slaughter rule to pass the bill in terms of the political response?  I mean, they don’t want to vote for the actual bill because it’s politically toxic, so they’re going to vote for the unpopular bill that’s politically toxic to pass under an unprecedented abuse-of-power rape-the-constitution style parliamentary trick?

Any House Democrat who votes for the rule that allows the Senate bill to be deemed passed will be voting for the Senate bill. A foreseeable consequence of that vote is that the Senate bill may become law while some of the fixes the House votes for do not. It is entirely fair for Republican opponents of any House Democrat who votes for the Slaughter rule to tie him to the Senate bill. Republicans will be able to say, fairly, that such a House Democrat has voted for the Senate bill—kickbacks and all—and tried to hide the fact. Republicans may as well point out now that that’s exactly what they’re going to do.

AAAAGH.  Welcome to my nightmare, people.  So many unprincipled people in one place with power to make a decision that will clearly have detrimental effects on my future.

And yes, I realize that the point has nothing to do with politicians acting rationally, it’s all about setting up a permanent left-leaning welfare state constituency, gaining power by any means necessary, etc etc…

Insty Sez: TRICKS ONLY WORK IF THE MARKS DON’T NOTICE