Posts Tagged ‘liberalism’

Yglesias links and quotes Ayaan Hirsi Ali on what is coming in Egypt

Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali warns us to be very afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt. And maybe she’s right. But it’s difficult to take her word for it. After all, she thinks that Islam in general needs to be extirpated from the planet:

He then quotes her piece, bolding certain bits:

“I’ll tell you why: because Islam is the new fascism. Just like Nazism started with Hitler’s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism. Young Muslims need to be persuaded that the vision of the Prophet Mohammed is a bad one, and you aren’t going to get that in Islamic faith schools.”

Now of course bolding a piece is meant to draw your eyes to the bolded section and to avoid the unbolded sections. Yglesias having a liberal audience is trying to stress Ali “intolerance”. How dare she be intolerant of Islam. Now lets look at the same piece with different words bolded:

I’ll tell you why: because Islam is the new fascism. Just like Nazism started with Hitler’s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism. Young Muslims need to be persuaded that the vision of the Prophet Mohammed is a bad one, and you aren’t going to get that in Islamic faith schools.”

Now I would think that these things about Islam and Sharia law would be significant to liberals. After all if I as a believing Roman Catholic am repressive because I oppose sex before marriage, gay marriage and believe in God, how much more would they oppose Sharia, which stones women, beats (and kills) gays and slays apostates.

But we can’t stress these facts, because it promotes “intolerance of Islam”. Maybe it’s just me but I think we shouldn’t tolerate Sharia law, stoning of women, beating of gays, and killing of apostates.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali “intolerance” of Islam is based on a standard of Islam’s actions. Yglesias critique of Ali and defense of Islam is based on a standards of her thoughts.

That to me is the perfect illustration of how liberalism works.

I took a second look at Bill Whittle’s video (via Nice Deb) and there is a point to be made

I opposed 8 out of ten of the “goals” he failed to achieve so those are pluses to me. But consider this:

During his first two years he had an unstoppable majority in the house and during the first year of his presidency he had 60 votes in the senate and during the 2nd year he had 59.

One thing about pols they might not be able to add up the budget numbers but they know if something hurts their election chances. The fact that the president didn’t or couldn’t pass the things on that want list tell you a lot about more about the popularity of the liberal agenda with the people.

…in this post about the actual fear of democrats concerning an obamacare repeal:

The liberals, who could barely pass ObamaCare with a 78-seat margin in the House and a 20-seat margin in the Senate, as well as a socialist in the White House, do not want us repealing that. They may never see majorities like that again, and they will never, ever have the support of the electorate for nationalizing health care again – not if we repeal and replace, not when Europe collapses and Canadians keep fleeing here for health care. 2010 was their very last chance to get it through, and if we kick it out now, the socialist wet dream is gone.

The Democrats handed us a weapon when they ensured that benefits would not kick in until 2014 (the purpose of which was to ensure that this “budget-neutral, deficit-reducing” programme would have ten years of revenue and six years of expenditures). We do not have the same reliance problems with ObamaCare as we do with Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, and welfare. As Mark Steyn keeps hammering away on, once these things are in, they are never coming out. That’s why conservatives need to get this out now – now, before the private insurance market is completely dead; now, before the liberals can scream too much about people whose only source of medical care is the federal government; now, before the bureaucrats are in place. To analogize: if you are on the side of cancer, that last thing you want is for the patient to get a lumpectomy while the disease is still localized. Republicans are ready, scalpel in hand, and “Operation Demoralize” (great term, Prof. Jacobson!) is fear-mongering over sponges that are sometimes left in the body after surgery.

This post is what you would call a “must read”.

Last week I talked about how playing with language is a sure sign that something isn’t working out.

Well it looks like the left is going to need new words again:

“Being described as a progressive, on the other hand, is a positive for 22% of voters and a negative for 34%, with 41% seeing it in between,” Rasmussen said.

“But in the previous survey, voters were evenly divided, with 29% saying progressive was a positive description and 28% describing it as a negative.

“This marks a continuing downward trend for progressive which little over three years ago was slightly more popular than conservative.”

And remember they started saying “Progressive” because “liberal” wasn’t popular.

Let’s see, can’t say liberal, can’t say progressive, no wonder communist and socialist is coming back.