It’s quite obvious that many haven’t the foggiest idea of what’s really going on in the world today. They are still operating under some mistaken notion that all these regional conflicts currently underway have little relation to each other; that the factors contributing to these fights are local, and can be solved independently in each case though some sort of diplomacy or other kind of capitulation. Oh, you’re upset about land in Gaza? We’ll pull back. You can’t find jobs in France? We’ll expand the nanny state. You can’t preach your intolerance in Britain? We’ll go ahead and let you do it anyway. This approach is fundamentally flawed, as each and every situation has shown. Almost every conflict the Western world is engaged in right now has one thing in common, the clash between Islamic expansionism and the ideals of Western Liberalism. Local conditions and complaints are coopted by the Jihadists for convenience, they are not the cause of this global strife.

Some seem to think that, whatever happens, it’s guaranteed the world will be basically the same tomorrow as it is today. That’s wrong. They think we have somehow been anointed the worlds one true society, that Western values and tolerance and all that wonderful jazz will perpetuate itself forever, without any effort from us. In short, they think we can’t lose. They’re wrong; we can. And we are.

We aren’t losing because Rumsfeld screwed up and disbanded the Iraqi army, multiplying the pool of potential insurgents by tens, if not hundreds, of degrees. We aren’t losing because he okayed an American administration over Iraq instead of immediately turning it over to Iraqi’s, even if it were just exiles who hadn’t been there in years. These mistakes were costly. But they are setbacks, albeit major ones; just not the kind of mistakes that bring civilizations down.

No, we are losing for a much simpler, and yet much more devastating reason. We are losing because our ideology has turned on itself and is paralyzed into inaction. Europe as it exists today, or as we conceive it to exist as a bastion of Western Liberalism founded on the basis of Judeo-Christian beliefs, is done. It is unsustainable. Too many in the West don’t even believe in the righteousness of their own side. How can a people survive that way? They can’t. They say, “why not something else? What right have we to assert our beliefs?” And so they tolerate intolerance, their multiculturalism compels them to unquestionably accept uniculturalists. Europeans no longer have a solid conceptualization of their own existence. They don’t know who they are, nor how they got there. This is a recipe for disaster. Now they are being taken over by the beliefs of others, swept aside into the historical trash bin.

The transformation is already underway. Many European locations are already seeing near as much emigration as they are immigration. Those that see the writing on the wall are leaving. The world of government dependence was unsustainable from the get go. The promise of American military protection bred a European society unconcerned about first order problems. Protection? Leave that to America. Health care? Leave that to the government, just so long as I can party in Amsterdam. Mass immigration was sold as the solution to the overgrown welfare state, but it turns out no one ever told them they had to accept a radical transformation of their society as a consequence. And now many are starting to realize that is exactly the price they are paying.

Nonmuslim women in many British neighborhoods will only go out wearing veils because it’s unsafe not to. 2,500 French police have been injured in the last year fighting roving bands of “youths”. Frenchmen are as frightened of using their own public transportation system as if they were in Baghdad. As the demographic gap closes, it will only get worse. Those that don’t outright convert to the new dominant belief system, one whose followers actually are convinced of their own superiority and carry a desire for self perpetuation, will flee. Western Liberalism is crumbling, and soon it will only be found in America, if even here.

Iraq was an opportunity at a back door solution. A chance to temper the new and reformed Islam. Many promote “moderate” Muslims and the chance at “reforming” Islam as a viable solution. But they missed the boat, Islam has already reformed. The Jihadists are it. These aren’t first generation immigrants signing up en masse to join the Jihadists, these are second or even third generation Frenchmen, English, Canadian, Dutch and American citizens. But they hold little loyalty to their native countries. That comes second, a very distant second, to the new pan-Islamic Jihadism sweeping the globe. Iraq, or someplace like it, was our hope; a chance to draw potential Jihadists away from expansionism and encourage more desirable and tolerant governments, ones that could live together with the West, even with their differences. It was, and still is, worth the price to try, even if it doesn’t work. But we can’t keep worrying about the little stuff, all the while ignoring the tidal wave of history that’s moving to sweep us aside like yesterdays dirty dishes.

It’s time to make decisions. The “blame America first” crowd that thinks America is the principle agent behind all the world’s ills and the European worshippers of multiculturalism who refuse to condemn even those views that threaten to destroy their own need to decide whether they want to fight or not. Is Western Liberalism worth fighting for, or is it not? Decide. Because if they don’t want to defend their own ideological core - the principles that have allowed Western civilization to soar to unprecedented heights - they might as well go get fitted for their burqas.

That’s what could happen to the Democrats on election day. “Democrats Fear Disillusionment in Black Voters”

For Democrats like these in tight races, black voter turnout will be crucial on Election Day. But despite a generally buoyant Democratic Party nationally, there are worries among Democratic strategists in some states that blacks may not turn up at the polls in big enough numbers because of disillusionment over past shenanigans.

?This notion that elections are stolen and that elections are rigged is so common in the public sphere that we?re having to go out of our way to counter them this year,? said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist.

…Democrats? worries are backed up by a Pew Research Center report that found that blacks were twice as likely now than they were in 2004 to say they had little or no confidence in the voting system, rising to 29 percent from 15 percent.

When you make it the corner piece of your electoral strategy to boogeyman the opponent into evil vote stealers, the danger is people might actually believe you. Deliciously ironic.

There’s an epidemic in France! Apparently, there’s some sort of plague that infects normal, every day, run-of-the-mill, upstanding young Frenchmen and turns them into raging “youths”. So far, the Inspector Clouseau’s in the media can’t find any commonalities to explain this behavior, other than the tendency of these “youths” to scream “Allah Akhbar” as they rampage through the streets burning cars and assaulting innocent people. But clearly we shouldn’t read anything into that little bit of coincidence!

As a new feature, I will now offer regular updates on the progress of the media to uncover the cause of this pernicious behavior. In our first edition, we find the media hot on the trail!

French youths burn bus

A band of youths, some wearing masks, forced passengers out of a bus in a southern Paris suburb in broad daylight, set it afire and then stoned firefighters who came to the rescue, a police official said.

. . .Two youths then entered the back of the bus in order to clear out passengers before dousing it with gasoline and setting it ablaze.

. . .When firefighters arrived, the youths, some masked, began stoning them, he said.

And now we get to my favorite part.

Meanwhile, France’s minister for social cohesion, Jean-Louis Borloo, called on citizens to act responsibly because “tensions are raw just as we’re in the process of resolving the difficulties.”

Oh my. Europe isn’t doomed afterall, because Jean-Louis Borloo is right on top of this pesky little problem of social cohesion. I feel so much better.

Update: The French Intifada has injured 2,500 police so far this year.

IT’S OK TO KILL GAYS - BRITISH IMAM

The leading imam in Manchester, confirms that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, the rights group Outrage reported.

. . .”He told me that in a true Islamic state, such punishments were part of Islam: If the person had had a trial, at which four witnesses testified that they had seen the actual homosexual acts.”

“I asked him what would be the British Muslim view? He repeated that in an Islamic state these punishments were justified. They might result in the deaths of thousands but if this deterred millions from having sex, and spreading disease, then it was worthwhile to protect the wider community.”

“I checked again that this was not a matter of tradition, culture or local prejudice. ‘No,’ he said, ‘It is part of the central tenets of Islam: that sex outside marriage is forbidden; this is stated in the Koran and the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had stated that these punishments were due to such behaviours.’”

The questioner, Carson, betrays his own ignorant - though widely held - views when he asks “what would be the British Muslim view?” The British Muslim view is no different than the Muslim view, because there’s no such thing as British Muslims. There are only Muslims. Nation-states are not important under Islam, only Islamic law. As the name implies, pan-Islamic Jihad cares not for paper borders. When 32,000 British Muslims say they would be proud to have a family member belong to Al Qaeda, you think the multiculturalists would get a clue, but they don’t.

What’s really astonishing is how the American left still refuses to divert their attention off of Karl Rove and onto the real enemies. How else do you explain their inexplicable nonchalance as Islamists put into action, all over the world, everything the left has pretended the “religious right” was doing in America. The only explanation is that they have so defined their entire existance around opposing Bush that they are willing to overlook their true ideological opposites. “The enemy of my enemy…”

It’s much better to pretend that Islamists are just a Republican election boogeyman then actually to face the threat head on. Like so many other issues, the left’s position is being dictated by willful self-delusion, a consequence of their permanent head-in-the-sand mentality.

Hat tip: Dhimmi Watch

Gateway pundit offers a glimpse back at Democrats of old and their uncanny resemblance to today’s defeatocrats.

Fill in the blank:

By the year _____, the country had grown weary of the long and bloody ____ War. _____ thousand of the countries’ best and bravest young men had fallen on the fields of _____. Many began to think that the war was not worth it, and the price of freedom too great. The Republican Presidential Candidate ____________ thought no price was too great for _________. Unfortunately, after _____ long years of war, _____’s support was dropping fast, and people were looking for a way out of the war.

If you thought this was written about President Bush and the Iraq War, you would be mistaken. This paragraph depicts the political climate in America 142 years ago… and describes the challenges that faced a different Republican President during a different US War.

Check it out.

Things appear to be trending Republican. It’s hard to get a good feel for the House, but the Senate is showing some more encouraging signs. Checking the recent polls on RCP, there seems to be consistent movement in the Republican direction. Corker seems to be back ahead in Tennesse, which is what I predicted after Ford’s recent antics. NJ is back in play. Burns has closed the gap in Montana. Talent has been ahead in 3 straight polls in crucial Missouri, and one poll even has Steele tied with Cardin in Maryland. Needless to say, if Maryland is competitive the Democrats aren’t going to get control of the Senate.

Previous Coverage: Election Updates
Senate Update
Election Update - Senate Analysis

From Townhall:

A Danish court rejected a lawsuit Thursday against the newspaper that first printed the controversial Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Arab politicians and intellectuals warned the verdict would widen the gap between Westerners and Muslims, but said mass protests were unlikely.

The City Court in Aarhus rejected claims by seven Danish Muslim groups that the 12 drawings printed in the Jyllands-Posten daily were meant to insult the prophet and make a mockery of Islam. Islamic law forbids any depiction of Prophet Muhammad, even positive ones, to prevent idolatry.

The court conceded that some Muslims saw the drawings as offensive, but found there was no basis to assume that “the purpose of the drawings was to present opinions that can belittle Muslims.”

…Jyllands-Posten’s editor in chief hailed the court’s decision as a victory for freedom of speech.

It’s good that the lawsuit was thrown out, but I’m not encouraged and don’t really consider this “a victory for freedom of speech”. It’s a harbringer of things to come, and the fact that it was even filed does not bode well for the future of intellectual freedom in Europe. After all, what if the cartoons had been intended “to present opinions that can belittle Muslims”? Is that really a sound cause of legal action? Everyone else can be belittled, but not Muslims? Sadly, Europe has all but lost the concept of free speech. If you’re only allowed to express an opinion that doesn’t offend anyone then that’s not freedom of speech.

As you read this article from the New York Daily News, ask yourself this question: Who is more confused - the cross dresser or the Transit Authority?

Men who live as women can now legally use women’s rest rooms in New York’s transit system under an unprecedented deal revealed yesterday.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority agreed to allow riders to use MTA rest rooms “consistent with their gender expression,” the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund announced yesterday.

This manwoman - Henry - or Helena - is a few oats short of a meal. This is obvious - or at least it should be. But in this time of willful ignorance and progressive indoctrination the obvious is often obscured beneath a haze of political correctness. Since I have not a PC bone in my body, let me assure you this man is nuts. Nevertheless, I am compelled by my good nature to tolerate his foolishness. Tolerance. That is an important word. Not so much for what it is, but for what it isn’t. It is not acceptance. It is not accomodation.

This is where the MTA’s confusion on the matter begins. Whether stemming from the personal views of the bureaucrats in charge, or their desire to avoid a legal confrontation with the Transgendered Legal Defense Fund, I can’t say. But in either case, the Authority has taken extraordinary measures to accomodate this man’s views where only tolerance is due.

The great thing about tolerance is that it can be applied evenly across the board. “To each his own” never leaves anyone with the short straw. But once an institution starts accomodating certain views outside the mainstream, it must then accomodate all views, otherwise it is showing a preference. Plainly, it is impossible to accomodate all views as many are diametrically opposed to one another. So you are left with a choice: either tolerate everyone and accomodate no one, or vainly try to accomodate everyone - resulting in chaos where each group feels slighted. Sadly it seems there are many decision makers out there who are bent on accomodating every lifestyle choice a person can come up with. Some take it even further, by accomodating the fringe while simultaneously placing restrictions on the mainstream. We see this every day with the erosion of our Judeo-Christian heritage in favor of the secular progressive agenda. And now we see it again with the dissolution of the male/female restroom system, denying the true biological nature of gender in favor of the subjective transgendered views of a few.

It seems obvious that a man should use the men’s restroom. But when the man doesn’t think he’s a man, and the MTA doesn’t treat him like a man because he “expresses his gender” as a woman - I suppose it’s not that obvious afterall.

So who is more confused? Let’s call it a draw.

A female college student named Rena was quoted in the article:

“It doesn’t bother me because it is a reality,” she said. “If they believe they are women, they should be treated as one.”

That about sums up the problem. ‘People shouldn’t be treated as what they are, they should be treated as what they believe they are’. Sorry Rena. That’s not reality. I think that would be obvious, but I guess I’m wrong.

Elections are about choices. The choice this November couldn’t be any clearer, nor the stakes any higher.

. . .No doubt the choice confronting feminist-leaning women this election is a difficult one: Do they vote for candidates who are unlikely to care much about, say, restrictions on abortion rights ? but who will vigorously resist surrender to Islamic jihad? Or do they vote for candidates likely fight for abortion rights ? but surrender to the imposition of Islamic law? Goethe’s Faust comes to mind (although probably not for those educated within the last 30 years or so).

You see, Iraq was not invaded by American forces because we thought they’d perpetrated 9-11, or because an alarm went off in then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s office one morning that said, “Time to democratize Iraq!”

Iraq was invaded to destabilize the Islamic terrorist regimes around it with a democratically elected government, greater rights for women and economic hope (all an anathema to Islamic theocracies). Our government believed it was preferable to engage the terrorists on their own soil, as opposed to our shopping malls, sports stadiums, public schools and Starbucks coffee shops. Perhaps the war should be judged on how many of the latter have experienced terrorist bombings.

Earlier I said that you might not see the word dhimmitude printed on your ballot. That’s true. But you can look for its abbreviation after the various candidate names. With only a handful of exceptions it shows up as a “D” after the candidates name. And while it is true that a few “moderate” (mediaspeak for liberal) Republicans support the dhimmitude agenda, the only Democrat senator I know of who supports a vigorous resistance to dhimmitude is Joe Lieberman. Oops ? he’s running as an Independent. His party booted him out in the primary election and embraced the dhimmitude “D” candidate.

The two choices are clear. On the one hand we can choose the European mindset. Liberals want to model their whole existance on post-Christian Europe which believes in nothing greater than self-indulgence. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is killing them, and possibly us if we let it. Whether it be retirement or healthcare, they want to take decisions out of the hands of people and into the hands of government. The result of this is always a decrease in self initiative. The death of the West is really a death of individualism.

Only in America, more specifically in red state America, does there still exist any semblence of common ideology capable of standing up to radical Islamic Jihad. Only red staters still believe there are values with fighting for. Pelosi’s Democrats represent an endorsement of the decadent, instant-gratification culture that is eroding the West from within.

New Jersey has handed down its much anticipated same-sex marriage decision.

New Jersey’s Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.

The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.

The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name.

Notice the bold part. The failure of logic on this debate has been catastrophic and across the board. Everyone already has the same rights under marriage laws. First I’ll make some clarifications, as this issue is often obfuscated to the point that intelligent communication is prohibited. There are two different issues of “marriage” here. There’s church marriage and there’s legal marriage. A church is free to marry whomever they please. Citizens are free to get married by any church that will marry them.

Legal marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Everyone has that ability, regardless of race or sexual orientation or anything else. That gays often don’t want (though sometimes they do) to marry someone of the opposite sex is irrelevant to the question of equal rights. What they really want is a new ability, one that no one currently has; the ability to be legally wed to someone of the same sex.

I’m not altogether against such a thing, but I want those involved in the debate to at least be honest in what they are asking. Equal rights is not a question here, and those who make comparisons between separate but equal race based institutions miss one small, but absolutely crucial, point. Race is simply ones appearance and heritage, while same sex marriage is a behavior, an action. Society has long ago decided it has to right to legislate behavior. It happens all the time, most of it for good reason. But if a new right can be crafted simply by asking for “equal rights” where they already exist, how can we know it will stop at same-sex marriage? Why not brothers and sisters? Why not polygamy? All can apply the exact same arguments as the same-sex marriage advocates espouse.

Personally, I’d rather government got out of the marriage business altogether. Citizens are free to live with whomever they please. Churches are free to recognize some of it as “marriage” if they want, or not recognize some of it. And, dare I say, if people want to live with multiple partners, that’s their choice. If a church wants to call that marriage, then so be it. That’s for the individuals and churches involved to decide. Government never should have been in it in the first place. If it weren’t for intrusive government taxes and regulations, there would be no need for marriage “exemptions”. But the government is involved in it. And if the majority of the voters decide they want to recognize one particular behavior as legal marriage, theirs no equality issue that prevents them from doing so. After all, everyone else is still free to live with whomever they please and, if a church is so inclined, to get “married”.

Bench Memos takes on the merits of the decision.

The majority?s purported solicitude for the right of New Jersey citizens to decide what name to give the new same-sex arrangement is impossible to take seriously, when those same judges run roughshod over citizens? ability to decide which rights and benefits of marriage should be available to same-sex couples.

Ace finds a New Jersey prosecutor to weigh in:

. . .If the state legislature can’t define marriage (as it obviously can’t to the satisfaction of the Court), should it have to recognize any marriage (even common-law marriages which NJ does not). I guess I’m sick of judicial activism cloaked in the guise of equal protection or the so-called liberty interest, and the blatant opportunism of all things judicial. I’m also sick of the fact that the only consistent judicial approach seems to be hypocrisy.

. . .This Court says a private mall has to allow protesters on its property, but would allow me to be terminated for using the word cunt at the office? This Court allows Children wear just about anything at school, unless it offends Muslims or gays, in which case it punishes schools for creating hostile environments. I’m really getting sick of bad reasoning, hack lawyers, and hack legislators who are willing to allow the judiciary to rule from the bench and merely rail against the rulings (to raise funds) without answering with legislation because they are afraid to take a stand.