Featured Articles

Eric has an interesting post on some of the latest hoo-haw surrounding the DLC, and whether or not a more "mainstream" Democrat can garner the support of the increasingly rancid "anti-war" Left. (Bear in mind I have absolutely no idea...

I haven't been anywhere near a computer today, so I hope everyone was keeping an eye on Instapundit's blogstorm and lining up a good relief effort or three to donate a little dough to. Or, you could have picked either...

Henry Lamb has a column that puts things into perspective. He starts out by pointing out when bin Laden declared war:The United States is at war. It is a war we neither wanted, nor started. In fact, we didn't even...

Islamists, get out!

A GREAT column from JWR by Daniel Pipes this AM:

As the full implications of the London's terrorism by domestic jihadis sink in, Westerners speak out about the problem of radical Islam with new clarity and boldness. The most profound development is the sudden need of the British and others to assert what it means to be British, Australian, or some other nationality. In the face of the Islamist challenge, historic identities taken for granted must now be explained and codified.

What a concept! Give rules to immigrants: "You want to live here with US, this is how you can do it. If you don't like the rules of our society, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way back to wherever you came from!"

This can be seen on a diurnal level, where Islamist assertion has provoked a new European willingness in recent months to stand up for historic customs ? as seen by the banning of burqas in Italy, requiring a German school boy to attend co-ed swimming classes, and making male applicants for Irish citizenship renounce polygamy. When a ranking Belgian politician cancelled lunch with an Iranian group after it demanded that alcohol not be present, his spokesman helpfully explained that "You can't force the authorities of Belgium to drink water."

One can hear the moonbats already protesting the lack of inclusiveness and diversity in these policies.

As shown by two statements on the same day last week (Aug. 24), leading Western politicians are going beyond these minor specifics to address the civilizational heart of the matter. David Cameron, the British shadow education secretary and one of the Conservative party's bright prospects, defined Britishness as "freedom under the rule of law," adding that this expression "explains almost everything you need to know about our country, our institutions, our history, our culture ? even our economy." Peter Costello, the treasurer of Australia and regarded as heir apparent to Prime Minister John Howard, asserts that "Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs - democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty." Cameron also spoke with a bluntness unique in four years of politicians' discourse since 9/11: "The driving force behind today's terrorist threat is Islamist fundamentalism. The struggle we are engaged in is, at root, ideological. During the last century a strain of Islamist thinking has developed which, like other totalitarianisms, such as Nazi-ism and Communism, offers its followers a form of redemption through violence."

Back to basics - definitely a good move!

Most striking are the growing calls to extrude Islamists. Two politicians have advised foreign Islamists to stay away. Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, Quebec's international relations minister, retracted the welcome mat from those "who want to come to Quebec and who do not respect women's rights or who do not respect whatever rights may be in our Civil Code." Bob Carr, premier of New South Wales, Australia (which includes Sydney), wants would-be immigrants to be denied visas if they refuse to integrate: "I don't think they should be let in." Costello goes further, observing that Australia "is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Shari'a law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you." Islamists with dual citizenship, he suggests, could be asked "to exercise that other citizenship," i.e., leave Australia.

Likewise, Brendan Nelson, Australia's education minister, also on Aug. 24 urged immigrants to "commit to the Australian constitution, Australian rule of law." If not, "they can basically clear off." Geert Wilders, head of his own small party in the Dutch parliament, similarly called for the expulsion of non-citizen immigrants who refuse to integrate. But it was the British shadow defence minister, Gerald Howarth, who went the furthest, suggesting in early August that all British Islamists must go. "If they don't like our way of life, there is a simple remedy: go to another country, get out." He directed this principle even to Islamists born in Britain (such as three of the four London bombers): "If you don't give allegiance to this country, then leave."

Phew! I think THOSE guys get it, but...:

These statements, all dating from the past half year, prompt several observations. First, where are the Americans? No major U.S. politician has spoken of making American-based Islamists unwelcome. Who will be the first?

Who indeed? They would get MY vote!

Second, note the consistent focus on the law and legal issues. This correctly picks up on the fact that ultimately, the Islamist project concerns the application of Islamic law, the Shari'a. And finally, these comments are likely to be leading indicators of a broader campaign to restrict and remove Islamists ? a move that comes none too soon.

Amen!

WorldNetDaily is reporting that Air America is also spreading the far-left propaganda (surprised?):Do President Bush and so-called global warming have anything to do with the catastrophic damage caused by Hurricane Katrina? Yes, according to some politicians and public figures, who...

I took heat for pointing out that the anti-war anti-military anti-American South Dakota Democrats could care less about Ellsworth. SDP has a National Journal article that supports my premise. Excerpt:First Thune was the whipping boy for liberal bloggers overjoyed that...

German elections are approaching. The question facing the electorate is not whether to reform Germany's welfare state, but how and how fast. Whatever happens, Germany will remain far to the left of the U.S. in its institutions; but it will...

Don't like how the court ruled? Sue the judge, group says

The Argus's inimitable Dave Kranz notes an effort to impose some real limitation to what is arguably the unchecked power of the judiciary to do any darned thing that a judge decides to, regardless of plain constitutional and legal language to the contrary.

Calling this effort J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law), if one is absolutely convinced that they were the victim of arbitrary judicial abuse by a judge, the law would grant the right to appeal to a special grand jury. If the grand jury agreed, then the judge would be liable for lawsuit. The judge could also be found to be guilty of criminal behavior for failing to uphold the law.

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS SITE as well as THIS ONE TOO! The Chief has been reading "Men in Black" by Mark R. Levin lately, and this may not be a bad idea. Check it out for yourself.

A Message from tdaxp

Send feedback to danhabbott@gmail.com

Browse the Archives

What's New with the Blogs

South Dakota Blogs

American Blogs

Pro-Freedom, Anti-Terror

South Dakota Blog Alliance

RadioActive Chief, Ryen McClaren, Sibby Online, South Dakota Politics, Straight Talk

tdaxp Blog Network

Jim River Report, tdaxp, Bloglines, Cobuyitaphobia, Junk Politics

Breaking News

South Dakota Mainstream Media

American Mainstream Media

British Mainstream Media

Everyone Else

Jim River Report Archives

1. today
2. this month
3. this year

How Popular is the Jim River Report?