It’s About Sharia

Newt Gingrich resets our national-security debate.

The 2010 midterms have not happened yet, but the 2012 campaign is under way. For that we can thank Newt Gingrich. Not because Gingrich is a candidate, though he almost certainly is. And not because he can win, because that is by no means certain. We should thank Gingrich because he has crystallized the essence of our national-security challenge. Henceforth, there should be no place to hide for any candidate, including any incumbent. The question will be: Where do you stand on sharia?

The former speaker of the House gets the war on terror. For one thing, he refuses to call it the “war on terror,” which should be the entry-level requirement for any politician who wants to influence how we wage it. Gingrich grasps that there is an enemy here and that it is a mortal threat to freedom. He knows that if we are to remain a free people, it is an enemy we must defeat. That enemy is Islamism, and its operatives — whether they come as terrorists or stealth saboteurs — are the purveyors of sharia, Islam’s authoritarian legal and political system. 

This being the Era of the Reset Button, Gingrich is going about the long-overdue business of resetting our understanding of the civilizational jihad that has been waged against the United States for some 31 years. It is the jihad begun when Islamists overran the American embassy in Tehran, heralding a revolutionary regime that remains the No. 1 U.S. security challenge in the Middle East, as Gingrich argued Thursday in a provocative speech at the American Enterprise Institute. 

The single purpose of this jihad is the imposition of sharia. On that score, Gingrich made two points of surpassing importance. First, some Islamists employ mass-murder attacks while others prefer a gradual march through our institutions — our legal, political, academic,  and financial systems, as well as our broader culture; the goal of both, though, is the same. The stealth Islamists occasionally feign outrage at the terrorists, but their quarrel is over methodology and pace. Both camps covet the same outcome.

Second, that outcome is the death of freedom. In Islamist ideology, sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society — for Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a comprehensive socio-economic and political system. As the former speaker elaborated, sharia embodies principles and punishments that are abhorrent to Western values. Indeed, its foundational premise is anti-American, holding that we are not free people at liberty to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, that people are instead beholden to the Islamic state, which is divinely enjoined to impose Allah’s laws.

Sharia, moreover, is anti-equality. It subjugates women and brutally punishes transgressors, particularly homosexuals and apostates. While our law forbids cruel and unusual punishments, Gingrich observed that the brutality in sharia sanctions is not gratuitous, but intentional: It is meant to enforce Allah’s will by striking example.

On this last point, Gingrich offered a salient insight, one well worth internalizing in the Sun Tzu sense of knowing one’s enemy. Islamists, violent or not, have very good reasons for the wanting to destroy the West. Those reasons are not crazy or wanton — and they have nothing to do with Gitmo, Israel, cartoons, or any other excuse we conjure to explain the savagery away. Islamists devoutly believe, based on a well-founded interpretation of Islamic doctrine, that they have been commanded by Allah to kill, convert, or subdue all who do not adhere to sharia — because they regard Allah as their only master (“There is no God but Allah”). It is thus entirely rational (albeit frightening to us) that they accept the scriptural instruction that the very existence of those who resist sharia is offensive to Allah, and that a powerful example must be made of those resisters in order to induce the submission of all — “submission” being the meaning of Islam.

Page 2 here.

Permalined under the Pages section to the right.

From Powerline:

Andrew Klavan wrote a book called Empire of Lies. It was slated to be published in France by Seuil Policiers, but the editor who bought the book left that firm, and the new editor decided not to publish Klavan's book. This wasn't because she thought it wouldn't sell; it wasn't an economic decision at all, as Klavan had already been paid. Rather, the editor explained that "she can not publish . . . because of the political and religious aspects of the story." That is, the book's protagonist is a conservative Christian. Not only that, the liberal media is a sort of collective villain.

Klavan applies this experience to recent headlines here in the U.S., and contrasts liberals with conservatives:

[E]verywhere, the Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more. Everywhere, the Left seeks to disappear its opposition, whereas the Right is willing to meet them head-on. ...

Take the e-mails that the Daily Caller obtained from the now-defunct lefty Web service Journolist. Never mind the personal or psychological implications of a radio producer who lovingly imagines Rush Limbaugh's death or a law professor who doesn't know that the FCC has no power to deprive Fox News of a license or a reporter who wants to smear Fred Barnes and other right-wing commentators as racist in order to distract the public from the hateful radicalism of Jeremiah Wright, then Obama's pastor. The point is not these people's animus or ignorance or wickedness. The point is that what they desired was not victory in open debate but silence--the silence of censorship, intimidation, or the grave.

When has Rush Limbaugh ever wished a liberal's mouth closed forever? Really, who can deny that Rush would happily argue a point with absolutely anyone anywhere? When has Fox News ever done anything to its rival cable stations but trounce them in a free competition for ratings? When has Fred Barnes ever tried to bully or intimidate someone into shutting up?

And, of course, Andrew Breitbart, everyman as journalist, figures in this schema. It's an interesting question: do liberals try to silence their opponents because of an inherent authoritarian tendency, or merely because they are losing the argument? I think it's a combination of the two.

From Instapundit: 

DER SPIEGEL: The Shared Extremism of Neo-Nazis and Migrant Youth. 

By “extremism” they mean “anti-semitism,” and by “migrant,” they mean

“Muslim.”

From the Volokh Conspiracy:

“Asking millions of Americans to sign a birthday card for the President suggests a tone-deafness about the cult of personality. If we lived in a dictatorship, getting millions of subjects to celebrate the Dear Leader’s birthday would be routine, but in a free republic this appeal to get millions of citizens to celebrate a current president’s birthday strikes a discordant note to my ear. No, I am not saying we are in a dictatorship; I am saying that because we are not, we should not be emulating the trappings characteristic of that fundamentally different sort of regime. Nor do I think this is particularly ominous.” 

No, but revealing and down right creepy.

Update: a different reaction here.

The New Journalism

The consumer backlash against the House of Cronkite.

‘The high standards and wise judgments of people like Walter Cronkite once acted as a national immune system, zapping scandal mongers and quashing wild rumors,” wrote former “green jobs czar” Van Jones in Sunday’s New York Times.

This may be one of the most unintentionally hilarious lines in recent memory. Jones, you may recall, left the White House when his background — not just as an alleged 9/11 truther but as a self-confessed Communist and revolutionary — became grist for the Fox News mill. Mainstream publications mostly ignored the controversy until after he was fired, and then focused on the fact that he directed an expletive at Republicans in a YouTube video.

Now Jones, with billets at Princeton and the Center for American Progress, casts himself as yet another victim, just like Shirley Sherrod, the Department of Agriculture employee fired after Andrew Breitbart released a misleadingly edited video of her. (Breitbart, a friend of mine, insists to me that he did not edit the video himself.)

You’ve just got to love a former member of STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), a Mao-influenced organization with a professed “commitment to the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism,” giving Walter Cronkite — the dashboard saint of American bourgeois conformity — his due as the bulwark of decency. Yes, yes, Jones says he’s grown and is no longer the Red he was even a few years ago. But come on. 

For generations, conservatives lamented the decline in standards. When Hollywood portrayed glandular instincts as the new moral compass of the secular age, conservatives waxed nostalgic over the lost decency of the “studio system.” When the education industry shelved the great books in favor of hugs, conservatives lamented the demise of the three R’s and the “closing of the American mind.” When the Left became enamored with a “riot ideology” that mistook lawlessness for political protest, conservatives invoked “law and order.” Name a front in the political and culture wars, and conservatives defended the authority of authority and the tradition of tradition, while liberals and leftists defended sticking it to the man. 

But now that the legacy media is one of the last resources the Left still has at its disposal, even Comrade Jones isn’t immune to mossy nostalgia for Walter Cronkite (who, by the way, is easily one of the most overrated American icons). 

And that’s the irony: The Left only believes in sticking it to the man when it isn’t the man. Teachers unions and tenured professors, now that they control their guilds, are darn-near reactionary in their white-knuckled grip on the status quo. Liberal legal scholars are a cargo cult to stare decisis, for the simple reason that the precedents are still on their side. 

The essence of the culture war today is a battle over whose “gatekeepers” are legitimate and whose are not. 

Page 2 here.

From the blog GayPatriot:

My Apology to Shirley Sherrod — Withdrawn

Last week, I jumped the gun (as did many others) in taking what was a complex story and boiling it down to an video clip without its proper context.  I apologized to my readers and to Shirley Sherrod.

I hereby withdraw the apology to Mrs. Sherrod. 

As I noted at the time, this was a very complex story and I had a pretty good hunch that Mrs. Sherrod was not the angel she appeared to be.  I am correct.  She is a picture perfect product of the liberal policies that make African-Americans dependent on the Federal Government and foster a victimization mentality.  Mrs. Sherrod claimed she learned something when she helped that white farmer, but what she learned may be worse than the presumed racism from the clip of her at the NAACP meeting in March.

I mean – get a load of this.  This is the conclusion Sherrod makes against Andrew Breitbart:

Full post here.

Full Op Ed by Sen. Jim Webb posted below. 

James Webb on Affirmative Action and Race

In his much-discussed recent Wall Street Journal op ed, Virginia Senator James Webb makes some good points about affirmative action and race, but also some key mistakes and omissions. On the plus side, Webb’s article highlights the contradictions between the “diversity” and compensatory justice rationales for affirmative action. He also correctly suggests that slavery and segregation inflicted considerable harm on southern whites as well as blacks; it is therefore a mistake to view these injustices as primarily a transfer of ill-gotten wealth from one race to another. On the negative side, Webb is very unclear as to his own position on affirmative action. He also seems to blame racism and the historic economic backwardness of the South on the machinations of a small elite. The reality was more complicated. Low-income southern whites were often much more supportive of racism and segregation than economic elites were, and Jim Crow might have been less virulent without their support. 

I. Competing Rationales for Affirmative Action.

One of Webb’s best points is that affirmative action has resulted in preferences for groups that cannot claim to be victims of massive, systematic injustices inflicted in the United States:

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived....

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all “people of color”—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites.... 

This state of affairs highlights the contradictions between the compensatory justice and “diversity” rationales for affirmative action, which I previously discussed here, here, and here. Under the latter, it may be permissible to give preferences to any group with a supposedly different or unique perspective. Under the former, recent immigrants and other minorities who have not been victims of massive large-scale discrimination in the US should not get preferences. Even among black beneficiaries of affirmative action at elite universities, a significant percentage are recent West Indian and African immigrants.

Full article here.

Taxes Are for the Little People, not John Kerry. 

“Senator Kerry says that tax planning is a horrible sin when conducted by ‘Benedict Arnold’ companies and facilitated by those wicked tax havens. But I guess that it’s not such a bad thing when Senator Kerry is protecting his wealth. For the rest of us peasants, it’s our job to meekly get in line and submit to whatever taxes Senator Kerry graciously decides to impose.”

Read the whole thing.

‘COEXIST?’ You First.

So I’m driving down the 405 in West Los Angeles, thinking about how I can’t exist while others who believe differently from me exist, when I see it – a blue bumpersticker on the back of a Prius with the letters of the word “COEXIST” replaced by a variety of religious symbols.  Whoa.  I’d never thought of just, you know, coexisting.  Thank you, mystery middle-aged hybrid-driving guy with a goatee, for stripping off my mental blinders and allowing me, for the first time, to truly see a future of love and tolerance.

Funny thing, though.  I don’t remember seeing any COEXIST bumperstickers – much less love or tolerance – when I was deployed to the Middle East.  And I sure don’t remember any in the ethnically cleansed villages of southeast Kosovo.  But I wasn’t really looking then since I was pretty busy actually doing something about hate and intolerance instead of just striking concerned poses.

COEXIST bumperstickers represent more than just the obnoxious posturing of self-important twits – although the obnoxious posturing of self-important twits is a huge component of what they represent.  These public statements represent the kind of dangerously parochial, ethnocentric mindset that conservatives are often labeled with, except this mindset is the mantra of the transnational liberal/left.  It is a mindset that sees the “intolerance” of the West as the real root cause of conflict, and imagines that if we can just get beyond our own myriad flaws all will be well.  What this mindset does not appreciate – what it almost willfully ignores – is that all those groups represented by all those symbols making up the COEXIST design are not the same, do not share the same values, and in many cases have absolutely zero interest at all in coexisting.

He nails it.  Read the rest here.

Update:  This has been now been Permalinked under Pages to the right.

 Charlie Rangel Is Toast. 

“There will be resistance to Rangel’s departure, primarily from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for whom Rangel is, for all his flaws, a revered elder statesman. But Rangel is now indefensible, and not merely because Pelosi wants to show him the door: His is a style, a method, a politics from an age when it was simply not done to ask uncomfortable questions of a black politician, lest that politician (and his supporters) retort that the questioning was racist. That protective smokescreen of ‘racism’ was good to men like Rangel, allowing them to go about their merry ways blithely, and untroubled. It is harder to strike pouting, Manichaean postures now, when a black man holds the highest office in the land. There can be no cheap and easy shaming of critics, no slick refuge in a narrative of racial oppression.”