Daniel Pipes brings all the recent events together in Britain in this opinion piece. Also in the link, check out the pic of Rowan Williams. He does look like an appeaser Archdruid.
Beneath the deceptively placid surface of everyday life, the British population is engaged in a momentous encounter with Islam. Three developments of the past week, each of them culminating years' long trends and not just some odd occurrence exemplify changes now underway.
First, the UK government has decided that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam is actually unrelated to Islam, or is even anti-Islamic. This notion took root in 2006 when the Foreign Office, afraid that the term "war on terror" would inflame British Muslims, sought language that upholds "shared values as a means to counter terrorists." By early 2007, the European Union issued a classified handbook that banned jihad, Islamic, and fundamentalist in reference to terrorism, offering instead some "non-offensive" phrases. Last summer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown prohibited his ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with terrorism. In January, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith went further, actually describing terrorism as "anti-Islamic." And last week the Home Office completed the obfuscation by issuing a counter-terrorism phrasebook that instructs civil servants to refer only to violent extremism and criminal murderers, not Islamist extremism and jihadi-fundamentalists. For "classified handbook" read, "Dhimmi phrase sheet."
Second, and again culminating several years of evolution, the British government now recognizes polygamous marriages. It changed the rules in the "Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003": previously, only one wife could inherit assets tax-free from a deceased husband; this legislation permits multiple wives to inherit tax-free, so long as the marriage had been contracted where polygamy is legal, as in Nigeria, Pakistan, or India. In a related matter, the Department for Work and Pensions began issuing extra payments to harems for such benefits as jobseeker allowances, housing subventions, and council tax relief. Last week came news that, after a year-long review, four government departments (Work and Pensions, Treasury, Revenue and Customs, Home Office) concluded that formal recognition of polygamy is "the best possible" option for Her Majesty's Government. So, following that line of reasoning, if a culture accepts honor killing of a daughter for some offense in the Olde Country, would not it be permissible in Britain as it would not be considered murder, but rather a cullllllllltural response to an offense there? Where d'ye draw the line? Or does it depend upon how threatening or unruly the Muzzie masses are?
Third, the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, endorsed applying portions of the Islamic law (the Sharia) in Great Britain. Adopting its civil elements, he explained, "seems unavoidable" because not all British Muslims relate to the existing legal system and applying the Sharia would help with their social cohesion. When Muslims can go to an Islamic civil court, they need not face "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty." Continuing to insist on the "legal monopoly" of British common law rather than permit Shari'a, Williams warned, would bring on "a bit of a danger" for the country. Standing up for your country and its values brings on "a bit of danger" ye stupid f**k????! Sorry for flying off the handle, but standing up on principles always brings on a bit of danger. This is the voice of Dhimmi-Speak.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says that Islamic law in Great Britain "seems unavoidable." The Archdruid needs to be shown the door and the boot, unless, of course, that is what Britain wants.
Prime Minister Brown immediately slammed Williams' suggestion: Sharia law, his office declared, "cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor can the principle of Sharia law be used in a civilian court. the Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values." Criticism of Williams came additionally from all sides of the political spectrum from Sayeeda Warsi, the Tory (Muslim) shadow minister for community cohesion and social action; Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats; and Gerald Batten of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Secular and Christian groups opposed Williams. So did Trevor Phillips, head of the equality commission. The Anglican church in Australia denounced his proposal, along with leading members of his own church, including his predecessor, Lord Carey. Melanie Phillips called his argument "quite extraordinarily muddled, absurd and wrong." The Sun newspaper editorialized that "It's easy to dismiss Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as a silly old goat. In fact he's a dangerous threat to our nation." It concluded acerbically that "The Archbishop of Canterbury is in the wrong church." And in the wrong country. Pick an Islamic Paradise and plunk down yer roots.
Although widely denounced (and in danger of losing his job), Williams may be right about the Sharia being unavoidable, for it is already getting entrenched in the West. A Dutch justice minister announced that "if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Sharia tomorrow, then the possibility should exist." A German judge referred to the Koran in a routine divorce case. A parallel Somali gar courts system already exists in Britain. A Somali gar courts system, y'say? Sorta oxymoroony term, if ye don't mind me sayin' so.
These developments suggest that British appeasement concerning the war on terror, the nature of the family, and the rule of law are part of a larger pattern. Even more than the security threat posed by Islamist violence, these trends are challenging and perhaps will change the very nature of Western life. Britain is at a crossroads, approaching Muzzie Critical Mass.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/12/2008 16:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Britain is at a crossroads, approaching Muzzie Critical Mass
Not by a long shot (muslims 2.7%), but librul multi-cult dhimmipeasement sripes down any defensive mechanisms, multiplying the MCM by a factor of 5. Usual MCM is about 15%, so there is a thin margin of 1.5% (= .3% muzzie expansion) and once that is reached, the shit will hit the fan shortly thereafter.
#3
Britain is at a crossroads, approaching Muzzie Critical Mass.
Ballad of Noreen and Mohammed
Little ditty, about Noreen and Mohamm
Two married cousins spongin in the Dar al Harb-land
Mohamm the teacher latched onto a plan
Noreen pops out lil jihadis just as fast as she can
Got a five bedroom house in Greater Man
Two tellies, computer, and a minivan
Brightly coloured toys for the kids on the benefit scam
They get their guidance from the holy Koran
Dhimmies provide well for Noreen and Mohamm
2 muslim cousins spongin in the Dar al Harb-land
Mohamm runs a Party called Long Live Islam
To attack the system in the Dar al Harb-land
#1
On the campaign trail, the Clintons like to say that Bill is merely supportive and enthusiastic, "just like all the other candidates' spouses." Nothing could be further from the truth. Returning Bill and Hillary Clinton to the White House would present the country with the unprecedented situation of a former and current president simultaneously occupying the White House, the practical implications of which have yet to be fully explored.
How about we start by requesting that the United States Supreme Court examine the Clintons current campaign in light of the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution and take it from there.
#2
I remember when he did this, and most people knew exactly why he did it. Pardoning terrorists for solely political gain might bother some people, but look who you're dealing with. I'll bet neither one of them lost ten seconds of sleep over it.
CAUTION: Those of you with weak constitutions, or easily-upset stomachs, or who are allergic to artificial sweetners, should avoid reading the following article.
All over the country on Tuesday, women began weeping at the polls. I know. I was one of them.
At 6:15, the very first voter in my precinct, I teared up behind the thick plastic curtains.
Throughout the day, I heard from my women friends and co-workers a story similar to what I had already experienced: . . . Looking at the choices, we began, by rote, to reach up toward the candidate we liked the most, or respected most deeply, or felt was the most competent, or had settled on as the lesser of two evils.
And then, our hands stretched out, we froze. We realized, in a moment of quiet joy we could vote for a woman.
Someone like us. A woman as equally derided as loved, yes. A woman full of flaws and virtues, yes. "A woman who wants absolute power over the teeming peasant masses, and deserves it because she's so much smarter than they are."
A woman who, like so many of her generation, seems to have worked harder than any man to arrive where she is. A woman who, as we would see in the news later, made a questionable wardrobe choice that day. Tonight, on a very special What Not To Wear: "Really, Hills! Pink over navy blue; what were you thinking? And while you're at it, tell Chelsea that the black-leggings-and-her-man's-Van-Heusen look went out with Kurt Cobain. Wake up, girlfriend, it's the 21st century!"
A woman who seems to believe that we can do better, for ourselves and for each other. An imperfect woman, just like us. A woman. "As I brought the stylus down onto the punched card with authority--no hanging chads for me!--I broke into song. I wsa a little off-key, and the precinct workers looked at me like I was crazy, but I didn't care. I AM WOMAN, HEAR ME VOTE! NOW I CAN'T HELP BUT EMOTE! . . . I AM STRONG! I AM INVINCIBLE! I AM FOR HILLAREEEEE!"
Posted by: Mike ||
02/12/2008 08:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A woman who, like so many of her generation, seems to have worked harder than any man to arrive where she is.
By marrying a Rhodes Scholar and putting up with his infidelity in exchange for free room and board on the dime of Arkansas and United States taxpayers. Meanwhile, a succession of black and Latina women have cooked her food, cleaned her toilets and raised her child. Time to re-read bell hooks.
#2
And then, our hands stretched out, we froze. We realized, in a moment of quiet joy we could vote for a woman.
Something tells me Elizabeth Volkenrath might have had the same quiet reflections and elation about the Beastess of Belsen, Irma Grese's rise to power. They were hung together by the way.
#5
"We realized, in a moment of quiet joy we could vote for a woman...Someone like us..."
You have to wonder how many women are really like Hillary. Calculating, scheming over decades, arrogant, willing to downplay ideology for power, willing to change her hair, clothes, etc. just to get a few more marginal votes.
#6
Betcha she never even thought about voting for Elizabeth Dole.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/12/2008 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Heh. Yeah, but that was because Elizabeth Dole, being a Republican, was part of the ruling oppressor class and hence did not participate in Vagino-American Solidarity.
I just spent a half-hour I'll never get back standing in line to vote in the DemonRat primary (I'm so ashamed!), in hopes of fueling a food fight in Denver this August.
Fer cryin' out loud! It's 6-freakin-30, the polls close at seven, and I've gotten 2 robot vote-for-me phone calls in the last 10 minutes. Give it a rest, you idiots.
*shriek*
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/12/2008 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
#9
LOL, Barbara, you're so desirable!
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/12/2008 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#10
btw - this weekend, I told the RNC frequent callers (I musta mistakenly contributed in a drunken furor) to QUIT CALLING DAMMIT.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/12/2008 18:47 Comments ||
Top||
#11
How come the candidates get her number and I don't?
Candidate's Reform Institute also accepted funds from Teresa Kerry
As Sen. John McCain assumes the GOP front-runner mantle, his long-standing, but little-noticed association with left-wing donors such as George Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry is receiving new attention among his Republican critics.
In 2001, McCain founded the Alexandria, Va.-based Reform Institute as a vehicle to receive funding from George Soros' Open Society Institute and Teresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation and several other prominent non-profit organizations.
McCain used the institute to promote his political agenda and provide compensation to key campaign operatives between elections.
In 2006, the Arizona senator was forced to sever his formal ties with the Reform Institute after a controversial $200,000 contribution from Cablevision came to light. McCain solicited the donation for the Reform Institute using his membership on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, he supported Cablevision's push to introduce the more profitable al la carte pricing, rather than packages of TV programming.
#5
Soros is also a big funder of democracy NGOs worldwide. Want to dump on them, too? Jerome Corsi is a grade-A moonbat, (see this example, frex) and I'd stick my head out the window to check if he told me that the sky was blue.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
02/12/2008 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And to bring everything full circle. Rupert Murdoch is a Hillary Clinton supporter.
I thought at the time that Bill Clintons comments comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson were tacky and self-defeating, but I hadnt really given them much more thought than that. But this guy made some interesting points. Bill Clinton has mastered southern politics all his life, the activist said. He knows all the buzz words, he knows all the code words, he knows where you do and dont tread. Clinton, the activist said, has been on the right side of racial politics his entire political career. No one that savvy slips up the way Clinton did. It had to have been a calculated move. And because it was a calculated move, it was a deeply cynical, baldly race-driven move. Clinton, the activist said, was signaling to white voters that Obama isnt his own man. . . . The thing is, Bill Clinton is incredibly savvy. He may be the most talented politician of my lifetime. The Jesse Jackson comments were uncharacteristically sloppy. What in the world made him utter them?
So heres a crazy theory that occurred to me the other day, and that gets more plausible the more I think about it: Clintons comments were calculated, but they may have been more sinister than even the activist I met knows. Clintonperhaps subconsciouslywas sabotaging his wifes campaign. . . .
Yeah, I know. Clinton is supposed to be the male face of feminism. Certainly a progressive, forward-thinking fella like him wouldnt undermine his wifes ambition because of some Neanderthal urge to stay at the head of his pack, would he?
But whats really all that feminist about Bill Clinton? Certainly not the way hes treated women on an individual basis over the course of his career. This is a guy who routinely uses women for his own sexual amusement, then tosses them under a bus when they become a problem. Gloria Steinem famously wrote during the impeachment imbroglio that Clinton gets a free pass on sexual harassment because of all hes done to keep abortion safe and legal. But Clinton was a late convert to abortion rights (he was pro-life for much of his career), and rather conveniently switched at about the time it became politically expedient to be pro-choice. And lets face it, for a guy with Clintons urges (and inability to control them), theres certainly something self-serving about all hes done to keep abortion safe and legal. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
02/12/2008 06:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've had this same thought. I think if Hillery gets to be prez it will reduce his achievement in his own self image. She will then be his equal and he dont want that.
#2
I called this a while back. He's sabotaging all right, and quite consciously. It isn't about feminism though, it's about himself. Can't let Hillary out-shine him.
#3
Bill Clinton's reminder, paraphrasing here, .... that civil rights activist, Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988, before crashing and burning on Super Tuesday was obvioously canned and stratigized prior to release.
The halmark of a good scoundrel and lier is... from time to time he must respond with unmistakable credibility. What other "black candidate" could Clinton compare the South Carolina race to? Calculated yes, racist or untrue.... not in my opinion.
#6
or at least prepare a bag of ice to put on it after he's done
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/12/2008 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#7
So why would Clinton do it? Well, maybe he doesnt want his wife to be president.
1. Maybe people give too much credit for being bright?
2. Maybe Bill is really anti-women and racist?
3. Maybe he doesn't want to bake cookies and stand by his woman?
4. Maybe he is afraid he will be emasculated by his wife if she gets elected.
5. Maybe he is a self-aggrandizing, sociopathic publicity whore?
6. Maybe he is afraid that his presidency and legacy (whatever it is) will be overshadowed by Hillary's presidency. Personally, I think of Slick Willie's legacy as the BJ, his serial infidelities, the impeachment, his lying to Congress and the American people, and his failure to address a growing islamic menace.
By Sami Moubayed
Six Arab countries recently held a secret meeting in Amman, Jordan, aimed at finding ways to topple the cabinet of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the meeting, according to reports, was chaired by Egyptian intelligence and was attended by representatives from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Libya, Oman, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. They countries claimed that the Maliki government in Baghdad was a "Shi'ite administration".
Such a story sounds logical - given the dominating fear that Arab states have from the spread of Iranian influence in the Arab region. Officials from any of the six states would downplay such news, especially as they originated from Fars, a news agency set up in Tehran in 2002 to "promote the ideals of the Islamic revolution [of 1979]".
The middle class in poor countries is the fastest-growing segment of the world's population. While the total population of the planet will increase by about a billion people in the next 12 years, the ranks of the middle class will swell by as many as 1.8 billion -- 600 million just in China.
Homi Kharas, a researcher at the Brookings Institution, estimates that by 2020, the world's middle class will grow to include a staggering 52% of the total population, up from 30% now. The middle class will almost double in the poor countries where sustained economic growth is fast lifting people above the poverty line.
While this is, of course, good news, it also means humanity will have to adjust to unprecedented pressures. The rise of a new global middle class is already having repercussions. In January, 10,000 people took to the streets in Jakarta to protest skyrocketing soybean prices. And Indonesians were not the only people angry about the rising cost of food. In 2007, pasta prices sparked street protests in Milan. Mexicans marched against the price of tortillas. Senegalese protested about the price of rice, and Indians took up banners against the price of onions. Argentina, China, Egypt, Venezuela and Russia are among the nations that have imposed controls on food prices in an attempt to contain a public backlash.
These protesters are the most vociferous manifestations of a global trend: We are all paying more for bread, milk and chocolate, to name just a few items. The new consumers of the emerging global middle class are driving up global food prices. The food-price index compiled since 1845 by the Economist is now at its all-time high; it increased 30% in 2007 alone. Wheat and soybean prices rose by almost 80% and 90%, respectively. Many other grains reached record highs.
Prices are soaring not because there is less food (in 2007, the world produced more grains than ever before) but because some grains are now being used as fuel, and because more people can afford to eat more. The average consumption of meat in China, for example, has more than doubled since the mid-1980s.
The impact of a fast-growing middle class will be felt in the price of other resources. After all, members of the middle class are also buying more clothes, refrigerators, toys, medicines and eventually will buy more cars and homes. China and India, with nearly 40% of the world's population -- most of it still very poor -- already consume more than half of the global supply of coal, iron ore and steel. Thanks to their growing prosperity and that of other countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey and Vietnam, the demand for these products is booming.
Moreover, a middle-class lifestyle in these developing countries, even if more frugal than what is common in rich nations, is more energy-intensive. In 2006, China added as much electricity as France's total supply. Yet millions in China lack reliable access to electricity; in India, more than 400 million don't have power. The demand in India will grow fivefold in the next 25 years.
And we know what happened to oil prices. Oil reached its all-time high of $100 a barrel not because of supply constraints but because of unprecedented growth in consumption in poor countries. China alone accounts for one-third of the growth in the world's oil consumption in recent years.
The public debate about the consequences of this global consumption boom has focused on what it means for the environment. Yet its economic and political effects will be significant too. The lifestyle of the existing middle class will probably have to drastically change as the new middle class emerges. The consumption patterns that an American, French or Swedish family took for granted will inevitably become more expensive; driving your car anywhere at any time, for example, may become prohibitively so. That may not be all bad. The cost of polluting water or destroying the environment may be more accurately reflected.
But other dislocations will be more painful and difficult to predict. Changes in migration, urbanization and income distribution will be widespread. And expect growing demands for better housing, healthcare, education and, inevitably, political participation.
The debate about the Earth's "limits to growth" is as old as Thomas Malthus' alarm about a world in which the population outstrips its ability to feed itself. In the past, pessimists have been proved wrong. Higher prices and new technologies that boosted supplies, like the green revolution, always came to the rescue. That may happen again. But the adjustment to a middle class greater than what the world has ever known is just beginning.
As the Indonesian and Mexican protesters can attest, it won't be cheap. And it won't be quiet.
#4
Statistics about diet and meat consumption have notoriously been manipulated in recent years.
The best example I can think of happened back in the 1990's when "nutritionists" were touting how the Japanese diet in the immediate post WWII era was predominantly rice and veggies (More than 80% of caloric intake) and this made for the longevity of the Japanese. And that now that Japan had adopted a "nontraditional" (read: Western and therefore evil) diet with a lot more meat and fish, their longevity was suffering.
Except that the researchers didn't do their homework back further in time, a la AGW advocates. As recently as 1900, the Japanese diet was more than 75% meat and fish and scant veggies and rice. And the longevity was not appreciably different from the all veggie-and-rice era.
There are just some people in the world who have it in for flesh consumption, and they'll do anything to curtail or stop it. Although I suspect the author of the article wants it to diminish for other, not himself.
Standard of living in the West will necessarily take a hit as other countries compete for resources to make their own lives better. We'd best all get used to it. I think the world is a safer place in a world of comfortable bourgoisie than it is with a bunch of starving peasants, so we get something in return for our slight loss of lifestyle.
The real fear of elites, from Europe's ruling class to Middle Eastern sheiks to Ted Kennedy to guys like this, is that a growing and burgeoning middle class will be the fertile soil from which new economic elite will spring, displacing the old ones. What else can explain their love of "progressive" taxation, or hyperregulation of business both of which hold back each new crop of entrepreneurs?
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/12/2008 7:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I see this more as a case for free trade. Agriculture is heavily subsidized/regulated in most countries. Drop those and watch prices fall. (This means you too, EUros)
#6
The nobles class always fears the rise of the peasants and serfs.
If the peasants and serfs become better off it's historically likely they will refuse to submit and pay taxes to the nobles, and may actually rise up and throw off the nobles as unnecessary to their lives and perhaps even a detriment they can do without.
It's one reason why Europe dislikes America so often, so much, and resents us "dirty colonials". We're not ruled by kings, have no (real) noble class that can make our decisions for us, and seem bound and determined to make decisions for ourselves rather than have them properly made by our "betters".
According to some people, half this country is run by dirty, uneducated, red-necked, sod-busting, gun-toting, hicks who haven't got the intelligence, having been raised in the backwoods someplace and been marrying ourselves off between brothers & sisters, to know that folks on the coasts and especially in Europe are better able to make our decisions for us than we are ourselves.
It almost seems, sometimes, that this kind of prejudice and malice is genetic, a product of the actual inbreeding that took place between the noble families of Europe.
#7
As "global warming" hysteria morphed into "climate change" hysteria that is now morphing into record low temperatures in International Falls, Moisés Naím expects us to do the same thing that the "global warming" advocates expected us to do: panic, or at least care. The problem with all of these so-called experts is that they are little more than tabloid journalists -- depending on the pessimists to stroke their egos and approve their government grants to study things can barely be influenced if at all. Neither climate nor the size of the global middle class is likely to change abruptly because there are significant moderating forces present.
"In January, 10,000 people took to the streets in Jakarta to protest skyrocketing soybean prices."
That doesn't sound like the growing middle class to me. That sounds like the impoverished pushed to desperation.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Shannon Reed
Someone like us. A woman as equally derided as loved, yes. A woman full of flaws and virtues, yes. 
