StephanusCA wrote: John Ransom: "What it means, rather, is that no one, but mostly including Muslims, can’t afford to tolerate Islamists.” So apparently Ransom distinguishes between Muslims and Islamists. I am not sure how he would define Islamist. But most of the comments here seem to lump all Muslims together, even to the point of arguing that Islam is not a genuine religion and those who follow it are not entitled to the same rights of religious freedom as others in our society.- in response to Tolerating Islam: “He grabbed her by the hair and then shot her in the head”
Dear Comrade Stephen,
An Islamist is a person who advocates Islam as a contained religious, social and political system that is destined to take over the world. Generally speaking, Islamists reject the materialism of the two previous dominant Western philosophies of Communism and Capitalism- along with liberty in the case of Capitalism- as unable to satisfy man’s longing to know God, live for God and fulfill God’s will. Islamists believe that by forcing people, even against their will, into the Islamic system that they are acting in behalf of God.
Personally, I think that Islamists under the above definition are mostly sexually frustrated, intellectual dwarfs. I would include in that group every ayatollah who has ruled Iran, but most especially, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. I think there is a legitimate question of whether Khomeini’s version of Islam even qualifies as Islam.
Only God can know for sure what’s in the heart of any man. It’s not the popular version that most people are taught about Catholicism, but as a Catholic I was taught to respect all religions, including Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.
I believe that there is a Divine plan, and I am content to let God sort it all out without me interposing. In other words, I think God can handle every person’s salvation without me having to butt in.
But it’s interesting to note that people in this country who argue for freedom from religion- as opposed to freedom of religion, on which the country was founded- seem to have no problem with Muslim countries that routinely oppress religious, political and social minorities.
Those same people also seem to have no problem with the attacks that are going on against the religious here in America. Attacks on religion can easily be turned into attacks on freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom to live without insurance.
On the other, if Islamists weren’t blowing people up, shooting them, hanging them and beheading them in public squares; if they weren’t engaged in “honor killings” and female circumcision; if they weren’t special pleading for exemption from a common-law system that has been the most successful in history, in order to implement feudal law that protects male insecurity, you’d probably not see people arguing about the legitimacy of Islam as a religion. For example you don’t have people furious with Hindus in this country or Buddhists.
Truth001 wrote: We always have had right wing and in some cases left wing extremist that are ticking time bombs wanting to force their ideals on the US. This kind of problem has been around for years. This not new to the US. Has everyone forgot about Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to right wing extremious who blow up the Oklahoma City Federal Building. So Mr Ransom is sounds like you would like to round up all the Muslims and march them to gas chamber much like the Nazi's to the Jews. I guess that is one way to deal with what you perceive as problem. - in response to Tolerating Islam: “He grabbed her by the hair and then shot her in the head”
Dear Comrade Pravda001,
No, it actually doesn’t sound like I want to round anyone up and put them in the gas chamber. I’m generally opposed to the death penalty. Generally.
My recollection is that Timothy McVeigh was convicted in federal court of murder and died by lethal injection, under the law. While waiting to die, he was housed with other terrorists in ADX Florence, such as Islamist Ramzi Yousef, who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.
Nichols is serving 161 life sentences at ADX Florence.
I have no pity for McVeigh or Nichols. Both got the justice they deserved. They don’t represent the right-wing of anything.
Your claim that I want to march Muslims en masse to the gas chamber is the usual liberal hysteria that you guys throw up when can’t come up with anything else. I never hinted at such a thing and would be the first person to protest against it.
Homicide is wrong for Nazis, Christians, Jews and, yes, even Muslims.
Elephant Talk wrote: Jesus, John, you were doing so well up until the end, when you equated Democrats with homicidal maniacs. And why do non violent Muslims have to apologize for the insane Muslims? If a guy were to go into a school and kill kids in the name of Christ, would you feel as though he represented your religion? - in response to Tolerating Islam: “He grabbed her by the hair and then shot her in the head”
Dear Comrade Elephant,
I’ll tell you why.
Number one, there are few people entering classrooms killing “kids in the name of Christ.” I don’t have to apologize for it, because it’s not happening. And if it were, we’d develop remedies for it pretty damn quick, as we did in the case of Tim McVeigh. We wouldn’t wink and nod at it as a society.
We deal with our own issues.
The real problem here is that the Muslim world refuses to deal with its own problems. For years they have used the US and Israel as scapegoats, rather than deal with the pressing issues in their own society.
Why do you think there has been a mass migration from Muslim countries? Because things are going swimmingly in Pakistan? In Iraq? In Egypt?
You can rant all you want about George Bush and the invasion of Iraq. But at least we did something to try to make life better for them. And despite the violence, Iraqis have the opportunity to do what few in the Muslim world have a chance for: to make whatever they can out of the opportunity that we gave them.
Name a power in history that would have done as much for Iraq as the US has, asking for very little in return?
It’s time for Muslims who agree with the ideas of freedom to be counted. It’s time for those who don’t to go back to the sinkhole they left and celebrate their imprisonment.
ClaritySeeker wrote: It would have been nice had he been able to successfully bring the Summer Olympics to Chicago in representing all of his cronies there; Valerie Jarrett (she's a large slumlord there whose properties would have been razed to make room for Olympic projects), Tony Rezko, Mr. Daly, Rahm Emmanuel and a host of others. - in response to Obama's Pipeline to Nowhere
I wonder what extra games they could have introduced for the summer Olympics in honor of Chicago?
I have one idea: We could have individuals compete for the Democrat nomination to Illinois’ General Assembly while being indicted for bribery.
From the Chicago Tribune:
A Chicago Democratic lawmaker charged with bribery a week ago won decisively in Tuesday's primary, the first election under a newly drawn map that shook up House and Senate seats from the city to the suburbs.
Even before unofficial results rolled in, some sitting Republican lawmakers were bound to lose in DuPage County, casualties of the Democratic-drawn state legislative districts. The map is tilted so heavily toward Democrats that the party led by House Speaker Michael Madigan, the Illinois Democratic chairman, is all but ensured November general election victories that could set it on a course to control the General Assembly for the next decade.
Democratic leaders showed no signs of backing away from rookie Rep. Derrick Smith, a West Chicago Democrat, even after he was accused of taking a $7,000 cash bribe in a federal sting caught on an undercover recording. Madigan poured more than $60,000 into Smith's race against Tom Swiss, a former ranking member of the Cook County Republican Party, before the bribery charge.
If there were a Nobel Prize for bribery, no doubt Derrick Smith would win.
Moonbat Exterminator wrote: Is today Feb 2? I swear that I read this very column, down to the IBD Potemkin reference, just two days ago. - in response to Obama's Pipeline to Nowhere
You’re not reading me enough.
It took you six months to figure that I republish a column once a week from the same, so I can take a day off from writing.
European-American wrote: Mr. Ransom, yr Potemkin analogy is breathtakingly brilliant! I hope Gov. Romney uses that phrase during the campaign. This entire essay is of great value for points to counter The Joker lovers. - in response to Obama's Pipeline to Nowhere
Hey there good-looking: If you though that calling me brilliant would get you mentioned in email/hate mail- hint to others- YOU. WERE. RIGHT!
Magna wrote: They need to consider more LNGP fuel stations and ways to convert vehicles and incentives for them -many municipalities use them and corporations yet the general public needs to embrace them as they could probably have fuel at home -perhaps propane or even natural gas fueled from home I suppose -I would consider purchasing from manufacturer if they made more options available. –in response to Stop! Don’t Cut that Wire! That’s a Chevy Volt!
Dear Comrade Magna,
The problem with all of these theories is that none of them actually address the real problem: Energy production and distribution is nowhere near a free and open market. That’s why you have such volatility in energy prices.
Until we have free markets in energy, expect there to be no solutions to the energy problems.
BannedModMark wrote: The Volt has a 100,000 mile warranty for the battery. LG Chem claims it will last 150,000 miles. Only time will tell. At the end of life for the car and the battery has a short range...Just use the gasoline engine….Seems that only the independents support Obama "all of the above" energy strategy.. –in response to Stop! Don’t Cut that Wire! That’s a Chevy Volt!
Dear Comrade Mark,
Of course your example flunks the only test that really matters, the economic one.
Why would I pay $40,000 for a Volt, when I can pay $17,000 for a Chevy Cruze? The Cruze is essentially the same car?
There is no economic comparison that you can show me that would make up for the $23,000 difference in price. You can claim fuel prices are lower per kilowatt hour, but when you figure in the extra $23,000 it costs to buy the Volt, the Volt costs almost 20 cents per mile more to operate versus the Cruze at $3.50 a gallon. Gas would have to be $11 per gallon to make the Volt as economical, assuming you only drove on battery power.
And please: All of the above energy policy? Obama? It’s more like the “nothing that works” energy policy.
MSNBC's CHUCK TODD: Very quickly, president's going down to Miami to give an energy speech. Nia, you've been with me, I feel like, on the front lines covering the president from the day he took office. There is no issue that has been a, I guess, a bigger bust for the president than energy policy in general. There's a lot of, we can come up with a lot of excuses as to why, but boy, it's just like you can't - he's made no progress.
THE WASHINGTON POST's NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON: No, he's made no progress. I remember covering him on the campaign and he would talk about, you know, turning these manufacturing plants into wind turbine plants and it seemed to work then, but, you know, in terms of the reality and on the ground actually success during his presidency, absolutely none.
Cej54 wrote: There are worse problems than the volt and folks I'm here to tell you that it's the automobile. Those things are loud and scare horses. Now that means that innocent women and children can be killed because of that infernal noise. These new fangled autos also back fire which takes up valuable police time as they hunt for shooters. Also, unlike horses, autos won't shy away from hitting or running into each other. Worse, they burn! Ever seen a horse burn? Ever seen a horse run into a tree and burn? We must stop these modern contraptions before they kill us all. And don't even get me started on putting wires with deadly electricity into houses with little children. –in response to Stop! Don’t Cut that Wire! That’s a Chevy Volt!
Dear Comrade 54,
That was really funny. I mean that. Of course as Jon Stewart can attest, being true and being funny are different things.
Where were the subsidies for Ford and Edison as they displaced the horse and kerosene?
Oh, that’s right. There weren’t any.
Dbolick wrote: So the new-new CBO update revised the estimate down from $1.5 trillion to $1.1 trillion, but it looks like $400 billion of that is from penalties, excise taxes on "Cadillac" health care plans and "other budgetary effects": "Offset in part by about $0.4 trillion in receipts from penalty payments, the new excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other budgetary effects (mostly increases in tax revenues)." - in response to The Wonk is Wrong, Again
Obamacare really has five components if you strip it down to its most basic:
1) It expands eligibility for government healthcare and it pays for it by:
2) Raising tax rates by 3.8 percent on people making $200K
3) Cutting Medicare benefits
4) Imposing government price controls
5) Forcing people to buy insurance
It’s very easy to claim that your plan “saves money” when you cut benefits, raise taxes and freeze costs, no matter how many people participate. None of that however makes Obamacare more efficient, or a better value for our economy.
Mathematically the 3.8 percent tax on the rich raised just enough to allow them to call Obamacare a deficit fighting measure. But the tax, in and of itself, does nothing to help reform healthcare. They could have just imposed at 1.9 percent tax without the rest of the legislation, applied it to the deficit and accomplished the same objective of deficit fighting under their math.
Or they could have imposed a 1.9 percent tax, passed the rest of the legislation and called it breakeven.
But they picked 3.8 percent so they could claim that Obamacare was a deficit reduction measure, when in fact only the tax portion of the plan in and above the Obamacare costs are really deficit fighters.
Of course, even under their plan at 3.8 percent tax on people making $200,000 per year, everyone assumes the plan won’t save money in the end.
None1257 wrote: This is really, really simple. All you need to know is, will total healthcare spending, ten or twenty years from now, go up or go down? As a percentage of GDP, will total healthcare spending represent a bigger or smaller percentage of total GDP? How do you solve the cost problem with healthcare, as long as the medical inflation rate is consistently higher than the overall inflation rate? - in response to The Wonk is Wrong, Again
Dear Comrade None,
It’s that simple if you assume that: 1) the government is responsible for how much money that the economy devotes to healthcare as a percentage of GDP; 2) that spending less money as a percentage of GDP is better than spending more; and 3) that the problem with runaway healthcare inflation can be solved making the government the only healthcare customer.
Kathy 18 wrote: John, Are you going to write about Obama's new executive order that says he has control of all our resources in case of what he determines to be an emergency? - in response to The Wonk is Wrong, Again
I might. I’m looking at it. I think it’s not the smoking gun that some make it out to be- yet. But I think there’s no reason for this 40-year-old law.
It’s clearly a danger to the Republic if misused. And one day it will be, like it or not.
In the meantime there is a good article about it at Hot Air, by JE Dyer.
That's it for this week,
P.S. I don't know all the ins and outs of the Trayvon Martin case- nor do you or Obama- but the Black Panthers, egged on by the first post-racial president of the United States, has issued a $10,000 bounty on George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin.
Hey Obama, if you don't have anything constructive to offer and can't be president of the whole United States, could you at least keep you mouth shut?
Ok. I didn't think so.hr>
"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peaks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.