The common bonds between Iraniah Mullahs and the Democrats *UPDATED*

Several years ago, when Bush Derangement Syndrome was at its peak, I tackled the “he’s got his finger on the button and he’s going to blow up the world” meme that anti-war activists were so shrilly screaming.  I pointed out that there was no evidence whatsoever to indicate that George Bush was an apocalyptic person.  Indeed, every indication was that he was someone who fought reluctantly and defensively only — that is, he wanted to protect America from destruction at the hands of another.  That his information was wrong, that the threat from Iraq was something of a Potemkin threat, with Hussein blustering about his capabilities to elevate his profile, doesn’t take away from the fact that Bush engaged with Iraq, not to destroy Iraq, but because he believed America was at imminent risk from Iraq’s destructive capabilities.  (Incidentally, I believe that much of Iraq’s arsenal, whether it rose to the level of WMDs or not, is currently sitting comfortably in Syria, except for the bit that Israel destroyed in 2007.)

How different are the Mullahs.  Western pragmatists (including Leftists in deep denial about the nature of Apocalyptic Shia Islam) believe that Iran is merely bloviating for effect when it constantly insists that Israel will be reduced to ashes.  They believe that Iran is merely trying to gain regional stature by creating functional nuclear weapons.  After all, they say, Iran knows that, if it launches a nuclear bomb at Israel, two things will happen:  First, Israel’s last act before its own destruction will be to destroy Iran (assuming Israel has that long-range nuclear capability itself).  Second, Iran will become a pariah among nations for committing this genocidal act, which will lead to the downfall of the Mullahs and the end of their dreams.  As for this last, considering the rampant antisemitism on the rise around the world, considering the region in which Iran is located, and, right now, considering the man in the White House, I don’t believe that for a minute.  Iran will get her hand politely slapped at the UN, and the world will continue as usual, minus a few million Jews.

The last argument in the pragmatists’ quiver is that, even if Israel can’t destroy Iran, and even if Iran doesn’t become a pariah nation, Iran will not drop the bomb because, if she does, as many Muslims will die as will Jews.  After all, not only does Israel have a huge Arab population, it is surrounded by Muslims — in the West Bank, in Gaza, in Egypt, in Jordan, in Lebanon.  Nuclear bombs have fallout, and many millions of Muslims will die along with the hated Jews.

And that’s where the pragmatists show themselves to be ignoramuses.  They actually believe that the Mullahs care whether Muslims, Iranian or otherwise, die.  The Mullahs don’t.  Their Shia religion is an apocalyptic one, and one that doesn’t care whether man or God ignites the maelstrom that brings about the returning of the missing imam and the end of days.  In that, their apocalyptic fervor is quite different from the Christian belief in an apocalypse.  As I understand it, the latter predicts the Apocalypse’s ultimate arrival, but does not believe that man is the instrument that will bring it about.  God will, when he wills.

For the Mullahs, then, there’s a distinct virtue in simultaneously wiping God’s enemies (Jews and the hated State of Israel) off the earth and in simultaneously bringing about the end of days.  That the latter might involve the deaths of millions, including Iran’s own citizens, is completely irrelevant.  The goal matters, and the collateral damage just has to be accepted as part of that greater good.

I promised in the title of this post that I would compare Mullahs and Democrats.  I will or, rather, Andy McCarthy will explain that the Democrats, too, do not care about self-immolation if it will lead to their own apocalyptic vision, which is the destruction of America’s evil capitalist, individualist system, and the emergence, like a phoenix from the ashes, of a socialist promised land.  Any pragmatist Republican fantasies that Democrats will retreat in the face of failing poll numbers are just that — fantasies:

I think our side is analyzing this all wrong: Today’s Democrats are controlled by the radical Left, and it is more important to them to execute the permanent transformation of American society than it is to win the upcoming election cycles. They have already factored in losing in November — even losing big. For them, winning big now outweighs that. I think they’re right.

I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that “reconciliation,” if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That’s the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership’s statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I’m glad Republicans have held firm, but let’s not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you’ve calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.

Nor is there any consolation to be had in a Republican sweep in November.  Even if the Republicans grab the majority in both houses, they will not be able to pass veto-proof bills undoing the reconciliation damage heading down the political path.  Obama, after all, is every bit as interested in transformation as the rest of the current crop of Democrats and will willingly sacrifice himself by vetoing bills aimed at undoing a government takeover of 1/6 of the American economy.

Democrats are political martyrs, willing to die for the cause.  This willingness explains Obama’s silly double-talk, where he urges compromise on the one hand and, on the other hand, says his way or the reconciliation highway.

And really, when you think about it, the martyrdom here is minimal.  No actual crucifixion, no arrows, no flayings, no nuclear annihilation.  Instead, you pack your bags, board a plane, and head off into the sunset of six figure speaking gigs, corporate jobs, and endless media adulation.  That is, until the whole system implodes and the true anarchy begins.

Cross-p0sted at Right Wing News

UPDATE:  From Andy McCarthy’s savvy predictions to Nancy Pelosi’s small brain and loud mouth:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue’s massive role in this election year.

Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program “This Week.”
“We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress,” she said. “We’re here to do the job for the American people.”

[snip]

Her comments to ABC, in the interview released Sunday, seemed to acknowledge the widely held view that Democrats will lose House seats this fall — maybe a lot. They now control the chamber 255 to 178, with two vacancies. Pelosi stopped well short of suggesting Democrats could lose their majority, but she called on members of her party to make a bold move on health care with no prospects of GOP help.

“Time is up,” she said. “We really have to go forth.”

Her comments somewhat echoed those of President Obama, who said at the end of last week’s bipartisan health care summit that Congress should act on the issue and let voters render their verdicts. “That’s what elections are for,” he said.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Al

     
    There is this belief on both sides that if government healthcare is enacted, it can not be
    “un-enacted” (sorry). The Libs seem to feel that all they have to do is get the football over the goal line, and even if the ball carrier has a broken neck, nothing can change the fact that they won. Forever.
    The Eighteenth Ammendment made alcoholic beverages illegal. Another one of those well intentioned acts with hideous consequences. Not the least of which was the rise of organized crime and governmental corruption in places like Chicago.
    The Twenty-First Ammendment repealed the Eighteenth.
    As far as the economic implosion of Greece and Europe are concerned, it may happen. But I’m willing to bet that the few nations who remain economically viable will rethink their unifying agreements as they experience negative cash flow to the unproductive, leach nations of the Union.
    We in New Jersey now have a Governor who has frozen governmental agency budgets and is starting to re-negotiate government worker pensions and benefits. The government union workers are screaming. They are horrified that they should have to make co-pays when going to the doctor.
    It will be hard, but we are starting to turn this liberal disaster looking for a time and place to happen into a rebirth of individual freedom of thought, action, and economic growth.
     

  • Mike Devx

    I agree with Al.
     
    It is known that it’s difficult to undo entitlements, once enacted.  But *if* the Democrats employ Reconciliation to enact the entitlements/bankruptcy of America that they intend, and the American people continue to insist they don’t want it (as a whole),  then conservatives can be elected to undo do the damage.  As long as the undoing is part of the campaign promise that puts conservatives back into power, we would have a  mandate to do so.
     
    In addition, the liberals should be careful of what they wish for, because what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  If they pass this solely via one-Party Reconciliation, then they have established the precedent, and we can, and should, use one-Party Reconciliation to undo the damage.  It would be entirely fitting, and entirely proper.
     
    In the scenario I described above, throwing their tactics right back at them,  there is one immense, truly immense advantage as well:  Due to the mandate of the win, achieved via the explicit campaign promise, the American People would be with us, in a manner they had not been with the Democrats.
     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Democracy is the best system in the world for controlling the masses with a handful of people at the top.
     
     
    The Democrat machine is not a believer in patriotism. They used patriots, connected with the Democrats, to defend the Democrats, but people are fools if they thought this would benefit their own interests. Surely being used as a human shield by terrorists will prevent you from being blown up, probably, by the United States military, but in doing so you aid in the bad guys in defeating the good guys. That has a concurrent and long term negative affect on your own prospects at survival.
     
    There are plenty of patriots in America. But fools they be when they eagerly jump in front of Democrats to defend them from charges of a lack of patriotism.
     
    But hey. They share many things with tribal Arabs and the Middle East politics. So it’s nothing special. They’ll all go jump in front of evil, to protect evil and to defeat the good.

  • SADIE

    “They share many things with tribal Arabs and the Middle East politics”
    Hmm .. could we add a kamikaze mission to the above -so focused on their mission to the exclusion of the damage and harm to be vented upon the whole.

  • Pingback: » Links To Visit – 02/28/10 NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country…()

  • binadaat

     
    There is this belief on both sides that if government healthcare is enacted, it can not be
    “un-enacted” (sorry). The Libs seem to feel that all they have to do is get the football over the goal line, and even if the ball carrier has a broken neck, nothing can change the fact that they won. Forever.
    look at this
    http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

  • suek

    Here’s an article comparing the health plans of Massachusetts and Indiana.  Definitely worth a read.  This is why I don’t want Romney – I don’t know if he compromised his principles to get the Massachusetts plan, or if he just thought his plan was less harmful than that which his legislators were pushing, but the fact is, he signed the bill for the program.  It’s _his_ baby.  I had the same problem with Bush – the executive has the veto power and should use it when he feels it’s appropriate.  It’s true that a bill may still pass over his veto, but then it’s the legislature’s responsibility, not his.  Does anyone doubt for an instant that if the GOP gets control of Congress this November and attempts to rescind the Health care plan that Obama won’t Veto veto veto every time he thinks something passes that obstructs his plan of a Socialized US???
     
    http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-lessons-from-laboratories-of.html

  • Mike Devx

    suek said,
    > I had the same problem with Bush – the executive has the veto power and should use it when he feels it’s appropriate.

    I felt exactly the same way!  An extremely conservative friend of mine and I had a bet in early 2007 whether Bush would even issue ONE veto in his entire eight years.  I think he did eventually issue one, or a few?  I can’t remember.   But in my critique of his wonderful-glass-half-full, cursed-glass-half-empty presidency, his refusal to veto rests in the glass half empty.

  • Mike Devx

    Fully on topic to Book’s post (I think it’s on topic) is this joke I got today from my sister.
     

    The Mother Of All Muslim Jokes

    Two Middle East mothers are sitting in a cafe chatting over a plate of tabouli and a pint of goat’s milk.

    The older of the two pulls a bag out of her purse and starts flipping through photos. They start reminiscing.

    “This is my oldest son, Mujibar. He would have been 24 years old now.”

    “Yes, I remember him as a baby” says the other mother cheerfully.

    “He’s a martyr now though” the mother confides.

    “Oh, so sad dear” says the other.

    “And this is my second son, Khalid. He would have been 21.”

    “Oh, I remember him,” says the other happily, “he had such curly hair when he was born.”

    “He’s a martyr too” says the mother quietly.

    “Oh, gracious me…” says the other.

    “And this is my third son. My baby. My beautiful Ahmed… He would have been 18″, she whispers.

    “Yes” says the friend enthusiastically, “I remember when he first started school”

    “He’s a martyr also,” says the mother, with tears in her eyes.

    After a pause and a deep sigh, the second Muslim mother looks wistfully at the photographs and, searching for the right words, says…

    “They blow up so fast, don’t they?”

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Submissions for Week of 3-1-2010()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Public Sector Uselessness()

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()