Featured Articles

Senator Thune is in the New York Times this morning in a story about the war....

New Orleans isn't out of the woods yet, but things are looking slightly better (or less disastrous), as Katrina is now "only" a Category 4 storm. (You know things are rough when you're optimistically saying that a hurricane is now...

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!

To: Journalists Everywhere From: Me Let's either a.) stop talking about "looting," or b.) at least note that there are probably significant numbers of citizens right now who are scrambling for food and water. Looting is bad. But looting is...

A bit of dialogue I had today: Person: They should shoot all of those looters in New Orleans in the head. Me: All of them? What if they're just looking for something to eat? Person: Shoot 'em all. Me: You're...

Professor Blanchard discussed a few days back a column by David Brooks of the NY Times in which Brooks argues in favor Andrew Krepinevich's Iraq strategy. Brooks suggests that Krepinevich makes a devastating critique of the Bush team's Iraq game...

Joel at South Dakota Straight Talk has a post on the bi-partisanship displayed by our delegation, in particular Sen. Thune and Sen. Johnson. Hat tip SD Blogwatchman...

Why does China need that navy?

The new commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Adm. Gary Roughhead, an interested onlooker of the joint Chinese-Russian military maneuvers during the past eight days, has posed a critical question about the rapidly modernizing Chinese navy: "What do [the Chinese] see as the intended use of that navy?

If that navy "is to ensure the free flow of commerce, that would not be surprising," he said, nodding toward the sea lanes in the South China and East China seas through which pass the oil and raw materials that feed China's expanding economy, not to mention its soaring exports. The admiral added, however: "What if the intent is not purely to defend the sea lanes?" He left the question open.

Indeed. That IS the question.

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?