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 follows 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 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.

Cross-posted at Conservative Compendium.

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.

The War Against Global Jihad is broader and will last longer than most anyone cares to realize. The virulent ideology that fuels jihad, Wahhabism, has long been spreading its tentacles across the world, primarily through the spending of oil revenues. The modern age, however, allows this vicious ideology to spread faster, farther and cheaper than ever before.

Below the radar screen of Western intelligence and security services, there is a global re-education process on the Internet to proselytize on the true meaning of an Islamic state. This "cyberwar" is transforming the political landscape of the Middle East. It is a slow, stealthy but massive campaign.

... More important than the recipes for homemade bombs -- e.g., hair dye mixed with nail polish remover detonated by the flash mechanism on a throwaway camera -- are the Web sites hosted by university servers, which direct them. MI5 keeps close tabs on 1,000 known extremists, tying up some 6,000 agency personnel. But what about those who conceal their thinking, or confine their traffic to the doctrine of jihad?

Liberal intellectuals on college campuses -- the majority of the faculty in almost all universities -- dismiss the now irrefutable evidence of the link between Islamism, radicalization and terrorism.

Nada Farooq, wife of one of those "broad strata" Canadian terrorists that just happened to have one apparently unmentionable trait in common with all his fellow conspirators, was involved in internet jihadist forums long before the terror cell her husband led was uncovered. "We hate Canada," was a statement she was known to have made on her internet forum. Before she married, she considered requiring her husband-to-be to sign a prenuptial that would allow her to divorce if he did not engage in Jihad. The myth of Westernization needs to be overcome. Farooq's father was not militant, she was not raised this way. Her family is not poor, her motives were not economic. The internet provides a new means to spread virulent ideologies, and it is a methodology security experts find exceedingly difficult to defend against.

The media will continue to make all sort of excuses for the jihadists because their multicultural credentials prohibit them from identifying the true cause - radical, militant Islam. How many engineers must fly themselves into buildings? How many surgeons must we see running global terrorist networks before we drop the self serving delusions about the nature of who and what it is we are fighting?

Cross-posted at Conservative Compendium.

The rise of Western Liberalism is not often contemplated by those who most enjoy its benefits. Few in the West are inclined to compare the presently favorable circumstances of their lives to those who have come before. They blithely assume that the freedoms and rights shared today by "civilized society" will continue on into perpetuity. Reasoning that no people would choose to deviate from that course once set on it, they are smug in their assumption that their world cannot be transformed from within. The reality of the situation is unfortunately much bleaker.

In his new book, America Alone, Mark Steyn lays out the shocking facts on the future of the West. In short, there isn't one. More accurately, whatever emerges from the rubble will be unrecognizable by modern Liberals. The citizens of the developed world have inexplicably given up. They don't want to play anymore, and the world will be left for someone else to deal with.

A stable population requires 2.1 births per woman. The United States has a rate of 2.11. Canada's is 1.5. Europe, as a whole, has a rate of 1.38, with Spain leading the way to the grave with a fertility rate of 1.1, half replacement level. That means that every generation - approximately 35 years - the population of Spain will halve.

Obviously, societies that do not produce enough children will have to import labor from somewhere else. In short, they have to outsource their future. What's wrong with that, many ask? Nothing need necessarily be wrong with it. Yet, in practice, if those that are imported do not share the values that make up the foundation of Western Liberalism, then it's little more than willful selfdestruction - suicide by contraception.

There is no single cause to explain this behavior. Over generations, an increasingly prominent school of thought has emerged that is inherently self destructive. This school of thought holds that we are to blame for all the troubles of the world, whatever the crisis of the time happens to be. Whether it's the "population boom" of the 70's - my how wrong that turned out to be - the diminishing resources of the world, global cooling, global warming, and on and on. With every generation this indoctrination of self-loathing has further permeated Western society, growing in influence to the point that reproduction is no longer seen as desirable, but instead as part of the problem. If you've ever had someone tell you that they don't want to have children because it would be "cruel", you know what I mean. And I'll take any odds that person is a leftist.

At the same time, the West's aging population has grown increasingly dependent upon its children. Government entitlement programs are making the demands for new labor, to support those on the public dole, ever more pressing. When none are to be found, it must be imported. These immigrants naturally come from those places that are producing the most human capital. But who are they? According to the CIA World Factbook, five of the top ten countries by fertility rate have populations that are 90% Muslim or more. That includes Niger, Mali, Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen. The populations of Muslim countries are growing by leaps and bounds, what better place for them to expand to then an increasingly abandoned Europe? In 2005, Mohammed was the fifth most popular boys name given to newborns in the UK.

So what, the multiculturalists insist. There's nothing wrong with being Muslim. On that they are right, there is nothing necessarily wrong with an individual of the Islamic faith any more so than an individual believer in Christianity or Buddhism, but what is the track record of government by Islamic societies? Can these soon-to-be Europeans be counted on to accept the tenets of Western Liberalism? After all, there's no golden rule of existence that declares that Europe will stay free and embrace Western Liberal values for all time whether we fight to keep it that way or not. If they don't accept these values, they will replace them with something else. A list of the world's least free countries reads like a who's who of Islamic society. Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Pakistan, Oman, Qatar...etc. etc. But we are not allowed, the multiculturalists insist, to question whether or not these new generations of Europeans will accept the traditions which have made the West so free.

It seems to me a prudent question to ask just who it is we are handing the reigns to and whether or not they accept our values and the best traditions of free society, but multiculturalists are incapable of posing this question. They are paralyzed by their own ideological dissonance. On the one hand they face an ideology that threatens their freedoms, and on the other they must follow their core belief that all cultures are equal, leaving them incapable of even considering newcomers as potentially threatening. But Western Liberalism has not been anointed the one true system of the Earth. It can be defeated. Quite easily, apparently, as modern Liberals - conditioned to accept all cultures - largely welcome with open arms even those who mean their destruction. In one of his many speeches following the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden listed the 1492 expulsion of Muslim conquerers from Spain as one of the many supposed Western grievances he uses to justify jihad. Islam has a very long memory. Spain, apparently, does not. Thanks to Spain's incredible disappearing populace, Osama bin Laden's successor will one day be able to cross that particular complaint off the list; Spain will be Muslim once again.

Europe is nearly beyond the point of no return. It will either have to accept its gradual Islamic conversion or suffer the destruction of its economies under the unsustainable stresses of bulging government entitlements. Yet all is not lost for supporters of the Liberal tradition, so don't start burning your John Locke books just yet. As the gulf between European and American geopolitics grows, new allies will need to be found. And if such a counter to the emerging pan-Islamic influence is to be found, I believe it will come primarily from South America.

Most South American countries are still expanding at healthy rates. The continent has the force of will and youthfulness that has left Europe. The roots of traditional Liberal values, however, have not fully taken hold on the continent as we see with the recent emergence of populist demagogue Huge Chavez. Nevertheless, opposition to his movement is growing. In the meantime, we need to renew our efforts in the region and bring more serious attention to working with regional leaders to ensure a strong relationship between the Americas as we enter this new age.

Cross-posted at Conservative-Compendium.

Bush and Rove are saying exactly what one would expect them to say: that they are confident Republicans will win etc etc.

Amid widespread panic in the Republican establishment about the coming midterm elections, there are two people whose confidence about GOP prospects strikes even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove.

Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are bracing for losses of 25 House seats or more. But party operatives say Rove is predicting that, at worst, Republicans will lose only 8 to 10 seats -- shy of the 15-seat threshold that would cede control to Democrats for the first time since the 1994 elections and probably hobble the balance of Bush's second term.

In the Senate, Rove and associates believe, a Democratic victory would require the opposition to "run the table," as one official put it, to pick up the necessary six seats -- a prospect the White House seems to regard as nearly inconceivable.

Normally I wouldn't bother covering something like this, as the White House is playing the role they must, that of upbeat optimists. The real story here is the batshit insane response by the leftist blogosphere over this simple story.

The MahaBlog asks, "what does he know that we don't," then reminisces about all those oh-so-fishy past Bush victories.

Flashback: As I remember it, on election night 2000 the extended Bush clan watched the train wreck from the Texas governor’s mansion. From time to time they’d appear on television, watching television. And at some point someone told them Florida had been called for Gore, and they shrugged it off. They weren’t worried about Florida. They knew they had Florida, one way or another.

Suburn Guerrilla says, "No big deal when Diebold is your friend".

Booman Tribune ponders, "Is this bravado, or is it something more sinister?"

I've got to be honest. I don't like the sound of that. That kind of rhetoric seems to be setting the groundwork to steal votes. What are we going to do if the GOP defies the polls all over the country, or in key Senate races, and they try to explain that have mastered the art of turnout?

The Left Coaster offers up the article thusly: "For those of you who think I am crazy for thinking that the GOP may have already planned to steal this election, I give you this from Sunday’s Post."

These people, ladies and gentlemen, are crazy. And they are the new base of the Democratic party. Republicans have made many mistakes, but atleast they aren't crazy. That's something.

Cross-posted at Conservative Compendium.

Predictably, the UN has responded to hysterical Muslim reactions to cartoons they didn't like in the most wrongheaded manner possible. Rather than condemning the intimidation tactics carried out against Denmark, the UN is holding a seminar on "The Responsibility of Political Cartoonist".

Apparantly the problem is not that some people feel violence is an acceptable response to statements or opinions they disapprove of. Oh no, we can't go around blaming people for their actions. The responsibility, rather, rests with those darn cartoonists who insist on expressing themselves. But never fear, the UN is stepping in to make sure these dastardly draftsmen are brainwashed into compliance. There will be no more unpleasent (nor free) "speech", we can promise you that!

Hat tip: Little Green Footballs

Early in 2006, things were looking bright for Democrats. Gas prices were high. Hurricane season was just around the corner. The world was cooperating, laying the emotional groundwork for the coming propoganda. Bush's oil buddies raise prices on purpose, because they hate you and are evil money-grubbing captalists, they would claim. Bush caused global warming and global warming causes more hurricans, the preprinted press releases stated.

There was only one problem. The world stopped cooperating, thus ruining their well layed demogogic plans. Oil futures dropped and gas prices fell with them. No major hurricanes to speak of. How can we make emotional arguments without the anecdotal 'evidence', they cried.

Enter Mark Foley. If you can't count on the world to cooperate, then you just got to step in and do it yourself. So Democratic operatives sat on incriminating emails, with no concern whatsoever for the safety of pages, until the most opportune moment presented itself, and then they struck. And what a massive strike it was. They didn't hold back, lunging straight for the heart.

But once again, the world is not cooperating. Someone tell that blithering idiot in North Korea, not now! We're about to win, you can't do this to us!

How will the story end? Will common sense prevail and restore substance to the national debate, or will we continue to drift aimlessly on the winds of emotional opportunism? Will Democrats ever explain how they plan to make anything better, or will it even matter if the collective hissyfit of the electorate thrusts them into power anyway? Only time, and the wisdom of the people, will tell.

Cross posted: Conservative Compendium

Boycott Italy?

Prosecutors have completed their investigation into the alleged CIA kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric in Italy and were preparing to ask that more than two dozen Americans and several Italian intelligence officials be ordered to stand trial, lawyers said Saturday.

Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, a terrorism suspect also known as Abu Omar, was allegedly kidnapped from a Milan street in February 2003 as part of an alleged CIA program in which terrorism suspects are transferred to third countries and sometimes subjected to torture.

Prosecutors say the operation was conducted by CIA agents with assistance from Italian agents, and have called it a breach of Italian sovereignty that compromised their own anti-terrorism efforts. They are seeking the arrest of 26 Americans, all but one suspected to be CIA agents.

Self contradiction in bold.  If CIA was working with Italian intelligence, how is it a breach of sovereignty? It's not.  Sovereignty is a red herring.  The real motivation here is politics.  Italy's new leftwing President is trying to purge his government of people actually interested in fighting terrorism.  Run up the white flag, Italy has surrended in the war on global jihad.

These people need to get a clue.  Capturing terrorists is not kidnapping, it's apprehension.

There was a time when President Bush seemed to see things clearly.  After Saddam's regime was toppled, President Bush declared unequivocally, "Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes."  Finally, we thought, the U.S. government is serious about standing up to those who have supported anti-American terrorists for decades.  But it hasn't happened.  Not only are these governments still supporting our enemies, but many of them we embrace as "friends".

President Bush has described our relationship with Pakistan as a "broad and lasting strategic partnership."  Let's look at the record of this "strategic partner". 

No man has singlehandedly done more to put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of "evildoers" around the world than A.Q. Khan, considered the father of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program and a national hero.  Between 1989 and 2000, Khan built a massive clandestine market, selling nuclear secrets to North Korea, Libya and Iran.  Upon discovery of this network the United States government was able, after applying much pressure, to convince Pakistani President Musharraf to arrest Khan.  End of story, right?

Wrong.  Musharraf pardoned Khan.  The lesson to be learned here is clear.  Sell weapons to Americas worst enemies without fear of reprisal.  Our response to this outrage was to do nothing.  A State Department spokesman meekly described the pardon as "Pakistan's internal matter".  I'd say the proliferation of the worlds deadliest weapons into the hands of the worlds craziest dictators is a heck of a lot more than a Pakistani internal matter.  Wake up!

President Bush vowed that Osama bin Laden had "no place to hide".  What he meant, however, was that he had no place to hide...except Pakistan.  The Pakistani government has refused to allow U.S. forces to pursue Al Qaeda in their territory.  The only thing worse than this blatant opposition is the fact that we've gone along with it!  Osama bin Laden has been allowed to operate freely inside Pakistan while U.S. forces can't get permission from Washington to cross the border and pursue him.

Pakistan recently ceded more territory to the Taliban-Al Qaeda alliance operating in their country. The terrorists now control all of Waziristan with more gains on the horizon. Musharraf's government followed this capitulation by releasing 2,500 Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists, practically everyone they've captured since 2001.  Some partner. 

After 9/11, serious change in the fight against global jihadist terrorism seemed a foregone conclusion.  But so far we've seen little more than business as usual.  We continue to allow our sworn enemies to operate freely while deferring our efforts to incompetent or hostile local governments.  With friends like Pakistan, who needs enemies?

See this post and more at Conservative Compendium.

When Newt Gingrich rode a conservative tidal wave into the Speaker's chair, ushering in the first Republican House majority in 40 years, it was both the culmination of decades of conservative growth and the beginning of a new era.  What Barry Goldwater began and Ronald Reagan brought to the forefront of our national conscience, Newt and the '94 young guns finished while quickly delivering on their legislative promises.

But that isn't the end of the story.  Today we have a Republican President with an approval rating barely hovering over 40, a Republican Senate that comes together to advance a progressive agenda far more often than a conservative one, a Republican House that can't get pork-barrel spending under control or even eliminate a single worthless government program, and an electorate dangerously close to kicking us out of power. The question so many conservatives are asking is, how did we get here?

Answering this question requires a bit of ideological introspection.  We must come to grips with the fundamental dichotomy of our beliefs that makes governing by conservative principles extremely hard work. 

Leaders in America tend to be current or former members of government.  That's no surprise, as they get the media coverage and national recognition that leadership requires.  The conservative movement is no different.  It's only natural that members of government are going to turn to government methods to advance their cause. 

For conservatives, however, that results in a clash of principles, with the loser most often being the principle of limited government.  It takes a lot of self discipline to refrain from using power to do what seems right and to make things better.  But that is precisely what conservatism so often requires, and it's also precisely where conservatives have failed with increasing regularity.

Liberals don't have to face this dilemma.  They have ideas that they believe can make America better, just the same as we do, but no conflicting principle that prevents them from using government whenever possible to implement those ideas.  Many conservatives thought they could just come into power and do the same things, substituting their ideas for those of their liberal counterparts and their base would be happy.  But it doesn't work that way, because conservative voters don't believe government has all the answers.

Ronald Reagan said that, "governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them."  It's a lesson that conservatives need to relearn.  We've lost our way and are focusing our efforts in the wrong directions.  We have to separate our cultural principles from our governmental principles and keep our efforts to advance each agenda limited to the appropriate sphere, and we have nothing more than self discipline to direct our efforts. 

If you believe people shouldn't gamble, convince them why you are right; don't legislate it.  Otherwise you are no different than a liberal who tries to use government to prevent people from smoking or eating fatty foods.  Work to convince people to believe what you believe instead of legislating their behavoir.  Faithfully living up these standards requires serious dedication and leaders who are intellectually honest.  That's the conservative way.

See this post and more at Conservative Compendium.

Congress Passes Internet Gambling Prohibition

Congress dealt a massive blow to U.S. Internet gamblers over the weekend when it passed legislation forcing U.S. banks and credit card companies to block electronic transactions to Internet gambling businesses late Friday night.

Online gaming giants PartyPoker and 888 will suspend business with U.S.-based customers when President Bush signs the bill. And more sites are expected to follow suit. PartyPoker, which earned $859.1 million in 2005, says they will change their focus to the non-U.S. market.

. . .Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) attached the measure to the Safe Port Act Conference Report. The bill also prohibits the use of checks to fund Internet gambling accounts.

"Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society," said Frist in a statement after the bill passed in the Senate. "Congress has grappled with this issue for 10 years, and during that time we've watched this shadow industry explode. For me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we can't monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws."

It's not enough simply to oppose liberal efforts to protect the people from themselves when you disagree with the action itself. True principle requires small government advocates to recognize that you shouldn't use government to protect people from themselves even in those cases where you think such protection is beneficial. No, especially in those case. Otherwise you are no different than the liberals, using government to force people to behave only in those ways they find acceptable.

True freedom allows people to make their own choices. Conservatives routinely say people should be free to spend their own money when they are advocating tax cuts, now it's time to put our policy where our mouth is. Let people spend their money how they please.

See this post and more at Conservative Compendium.

10/16 Update:

There have been a few changes since I first posted this analysis.

New Jersey - Kean seems to have peaked and dropped off. Perhaps the Foley matter drew attention away from Menendez's own corruption issues, but he's been consistently running several points ahead for long enough now that I've had to rethink my earlier categorization. I'm moving NJ from leans Republican to leans Democrat.

Tennessee - Corker's campaign has found a new wind and this race has tightened up again. I'm moving it from leans Democrat to Toss Up.

Missouri is still a dead heat, so these three states will determine the makeup of the Senate. Democrats need to win 2 of these seats to reach the 51 they need for majority, assuming all others fall in the direction they are currently leaning.