Karmic justice smacks Harry Reid in the face

August 9, 2010

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Majority Leader of the United States Senate, spent roughly a year shoving nationalized health care down the throats of a nation that clearly did not want it, disregarding both the People’s wishes and the harmful effects it will have on the country.

Thus we savor the irony and schadenfreude tonight as we read that Senator Reid (D-Bitter Old Man) has suddenly discovered that he doesn’t like the health care bill he fought so hard to enact:

John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute details a few fun facts in this video about HealthCare.gov, but the one that sticks out is this, a letter from Majority Leader Harry Reid to HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius sent on July 21st. The letter seems to indicate that Reid has finally read the health care bill, and after discovering it hurts Nevada hospitals more than it helps them, is complaining to the administration. You can read the full Reid letter here:

  • In a July 21 letter to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Service Kathleen Sebelius, the Senate Majority Leader complains that ObamaCare’s cuts to Medicare will “result in a net reduction in payment to Nevada’s hospitals when they are unable to absorb such a cut.” Furthermore, he questions the method used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to calculate the payments to hospitals, and is “very concerned about potential effects on beneficiary access if this regulation is finalized without adjustment.”

As Ben Domenech points out, what Reid is complaining about is the point of the whole danged bill! Half the costs of ObamaCare are (supposedly) paid for by cuts to Medicare. It was at the core of the bill, and yet it only now dawns on Harry that Nevada hospitals and patients will get the shaft?

We are truly lead by idiots, and November can’t come fast enough.

Meanwhile, consider donating to the woman who would like to replace him.


Now I’m confused: Can Muslims be Islamophobic?

August 9, 2010

I mean, that’s the only explanation why two Muslims would call the mosque to be built just a few hundred feet from Ground Zero a provocation, and that every Muslim knows that’s what it is, isn’t it?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The Koran commands Muslims to, “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of “fitna”

And the Iranian Muslim-American woman who lost her mother when United 175 slammed into the South Tower, she must be an Islamophobe, too:

When I am asked about the people who murdered my mother, I try to hold back my anger. I try to have a more spiritual perspective. I tell myself that perhaps what happened was meant to happen — that it was my mother’s destiny to perish this way. I try to take solace in the notion that her death has forced a much-needed conversation and reevaluation of the role of religion in the Muslim community, of the duties and obligations that the faith imposes and of its impact on the non-Muslim world.

But a mosque near Ground Zero will not move this conversation forward. There were many mosques in the United States before Sept. 11; their mere existence did not bring cross-cultural understanding. The proposed center in New York may be heralded as a peace offering — may genuinely seek to focus on “promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture,” as its Web site declares — but I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not.

The Sept. 11 attacks were the product of a hateful ideology that the perpetrators were willing to die for. They believed that all non-Muslims are infidels and that the duty of Muslims is to renounce them. I am not a theologian, but I know that the men who killed my mother carried this message in their hearts and minds. Obedient and dutiful soldiers, they marched toward their promised rewards in heaven with utter disregard for the value of the human beings they killed.

Liberal multiculturalists and “Big L” Libertarians tell us we’re being intolerant and somehow slighting the principles on which the US was founded when we say a mosque shouldn’t be built at Ground Zero, that it will only cause strife and be a symbol of victory for those Muslims who support the jihad against the West. They imply that we’re being bigoted, ignorant, and Islamophobic.

Yet when lifelong Muslims themselves say the same things, shouldn’t we listen?

LINKS: More from Hot Air.


Best response yet to the “Ground Zero mosque”

August 9, 2010

Of all the responses I’ve seen yet to the mosque slated to be built just yards from the ruins of the World Trade Center, Greg Gutfeld has come up with the best.

Build a bar next door. But not just any bar – a bar that caters to closeted gay Muslims:

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.

Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.

Genius.


Want to know why unemployment is staying high?

August 9, 2010

Michael Fleischer, the president of a New Jersey small business, provides the quote of the day to explain why unemployment is staying so high, and why businesses aren’t hiring:

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally’s pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally’s job each year.

You can read the gory details in Michael’s article, but that quote encapsulates the problem: government impositions in the form of health-care costs and other programs (and, really, it’s all a form of taxation, however they dress it up) increase the cost of each new hire to the business – it’s more than just salary. And the new burdens imposed by ObamaCare have, in Mr. Fleischer’s case, put the cost of hiring more employees beyond what it makes sense for his company to pay.

Hence, thanks to the progressive-statist program of President Obama and the congressional Democrats, the very forces that would work to lower unemployment are instead stifled. Is this what we voted for?

Thankfully, we can start correcting the mistake this November.

(via Sister Toldjah)

RELATED: For an excellent book on an earlier time when government’s anti-business policies kept people out of work, read Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man: a new history of the Great Depression.

UPDATE: MichaelW at QandO has the best summation of this situation:

…when the government continually raises the costs of doing business in the first place (or threatens to do so), the only ones who really survive are either the politically connected or the very wealthy (yes, they are often the same thing). That doesn’t have anything to do with building a better mousetrap, as it were, or growing the economy. And it certainly doesn’t do anything to raise everyone’s standard of living. Instead, all it does is reward those closest to the rule-makers, thus creating more competition to be closest to the King rather than satisfying the marketplace. It is exactly the sort of crony-capitalism we claim to detest.