harmonicminer

Here is an article in Huffington Post by what I can only describe as an apologist for Islam who claims that a young lady named Rifqa is in no danger from her father for committing the crime of apostasy. He makes this argument on the ground that “honor killing” is not mentioned in the Koran, and that her father is obviously not a fundamentalist anyway, based on the freedoms he has already allowed his daughter to exercise.

Mohamed Bary allowed his daughter to become a cheerleader and says she can practice any faith she wants — clearly, he is not a fundamentalist.

He is a concerned father who believes his daughter was brainwashed and kidnapped. Let’s see how this story unfolds.

Here is an article that replies to the the one just mentioned, and also refers to a couple of others that do the same. The central point is that the author of the article listed above is deliberately muddying the water.

Is the death penalty for apostasy in the Qur’an? Yes it is, sweet little Rifqa

And of course al-Marayati focuses narrowly on Rifqa’s statement about the Qur’an. He never mentions, although he surely must know, that Muhammad said “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him,” and that this statement in the Hadith (in which it appears several times) became the foundation for the unanimous verdict of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence: the apostate must be killed.

That he does not mention this key point is just one indication that as a witness to Islamic teaching on this (and other) matters, Salam al-Marayati is not to be trusted.

I encourage you to read both posts linked above.  In my judgment, it’s an example of half-truths and distortions on the part of an Islamic apologist, exposed by someone who really knows the texts and their historic interpretation.

In the meantime: even if it isn’t “honor killing” but is instead merely the Koranic penalty for apostasy, Rivqa would be just as dead, whether she was killed by a male relative, or her father himself.  Here is what I would find really convincing: maybe if the writer of the first article above signed a contract saying that if Rivka is murdered by a family member (or anyone else), then he will sell all of his possessions, give the money to the poor, and volunteer to go on TV and talk radio to expose Islam’s death penalty for apostasy.

If he really believes Rivqa is safe at “home,” there should be no risk, correct?

Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota has explained the “cash for clunkers” program this way.

we borrow money from the Chinese to pay money to ourselves under the banner of cash for clunkers, so we can feel better about buying cars from ourselves and companies we own, General Motors, so someday, we might be able to pay ourselves back.

Is this robbing Peter to pay Peter? The problem is the Paul had his hand in the cashbox after the robbery… so there isn’t enough left to pay Peter back for what we just stole from him.

Our problems are only getting started.

MYTHS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT THE UNINSURED

President Obama misstates one of the key facts in the health care debate by repeatedly claiming “46 million of our fellow citizens are uninsured.” Actually, his own Census Bureau reports only 36 million citizens are uninsured, with 10 million foreign nationals in that category, most of them illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, 14 million uninsured citizens are already eligible for Medicaid but they don’t spend even the minimal amount to join that program. Why not? They prefer to wait until they’re seriously ill and really need the program, since federal law says they must be accepted regardless of condition at no extra cost. Like the more than 25% of uninsured households that earn more than $75,000 a year, these Medicaid dropouts are uninsured by choice. It’s simply not true that the majority of those without insurance are unable to get it.

The man responsible for your death is gone.

I pray his passing will help to ease the pain your family and friends have suffered for so long.

His legacy will forever be connected with the name “Chappaquiddick”… as it should be.

In the coming days I hope the words of tribute to him will be tempered by the memory of your terrible and untimely death.

54% Say Passing No Healthcare Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan

Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.

This does not mean that most voters are opposed to health care reform. But it does highlight the level of concern about the specific proposals that Congressional Democrats have approved in a series of Committees. To this point, there has been no Republican support for the legislative effort although the Senate Finance Committee is still attempting to seek a bi-partisan solution.

The Congressional plan in its current form, especially with a “public option,” is going to do the same thing for health care that leeches did for George Washington, if it passes.

W.H. backs away from public option

President Barack Obama and his top aides are signaling that they’re prepared to drop a government insurance option from a final health-reform deal if that’s what’s needed to strike a compromise on Obama’s top legislative priority.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that the public option was “not the essential element” of the overhaul. A day earlier, Obama downplayed the public option during a Colorado town hall meeting, saying it was “just one sliver” of the debate.

He even chided Democratic supporters and Republican critics for becoming “so fixated on this that they forget everything else”, a dig at some liberals in his own party who have made the public option the main rallying cry of the health reform debate.

UPDATE: And it seems the White House is NOW backing away from having backed away from the public option. This whole thing appears to be one of those “trial balloons” the White House sends up just to see how much outrage it generates among the leftier supporters of the public option, in an attempt to calibrate the political cost of jettisoning the public option. The president’s “druthers” are clear…. and he’s trying to find out now what he can sell, so he can claim that he did SOMETHING.

Even being outspent five to one by some measures, the anti-nationalized-health-care public opinion is growing, both in numbers and commitment. Let’s hope it’s enough to stop this pig in a poke.

I have a friend who is a social worker in the Antelope Valley of California, which includes the Palmdale/Lancaster area.  She sent me this accounting of government provided health care in the area:

As a Social Worker in Los Angeles County I have a lot of dealings with Government provided insurance (Medi-Cal). My clients receive this coverage. As such, they have real limits on access to care. For example, in the Antelope Valley (that is Palmdale/Lancaster), make sure you don’t break a bone. If you break a bone you can only have it treated one day out of the month. If it is not the designated day for them to treat broken bones, you are out of luck, unless you can afford to drive to Los Angeles to get it treated. This, despite the fact that there are two hospitals and a county Medical HUB (treatment facility) in Lancaster. All of which have the ABILITY to treat it, but don’t, because they “can’t allocate the resources” for it. Seriously. It is incredible. They will make a child go a whole month without even setting the broken bone– I’ve seen this in action. Los Angeles is a long ways off, and many of our clients don’t have the transportation or money to drive there.

At the hospitals in Lancaster, if you are on Government Health care and break a bone, they will x-ray the break and diagnose it, but they WILL NOT TREAT IT. Im not kidding. This is just the way it’s done.

Further, I had a client who was reportedly having some kind of neurological problem. The Medical HUB refused to refer her for a Neurological Exam, citing they did not have sufficient resources to provide this. I argued with the administration, the doctors, fought it as far as I could. Didn’t matter.

Ultimately, I had to get a Court Order in order to get her a Neurological Exam. Even then, she was admitted to the hospital 3 times (for at least a week each time) before finally they referred her for a Neurological Exam.

That is Government insurance. Yes, they are “technically” covered, but they just can’t access the health care services. “Not enough resources.”

Some people reading this will undoubtedly say that this proves that “health care reform” is necessary.  Yet it’s difficult to deny that this is exactly the kind of bureaucratic silliness that we see in other government agencies, local, state and federal.    To put this at its simplest, the farther away the decision makers are from the patients, the worse things will be.  Someone has told people having coffee in local hospitals that they should not set broken bones for children, except on one day per month. 

There is very little chance that the government can reform its bureaucracy by creating an even bigger one.  And in the meantime, while tilting at bureaucratic windmills, it will have reduced or removed the ability of the private sector to take up the slack, as more and more employers see that it’s in their best interest to dump employees into the “government option.”

Good things come to those who wait.