I’ll start by thanking my good friend John R. for forwarding to me the email that is quoted in this essay.

On the subject of the Islamics in their community it would seem Australia’s Prime Minister has a rather blunt and laudable prescription for dealing with those who don’t care to assimilate into the Australian culture. Here’s the story:

WAY TO GO AUSSIES - At least your Government has the guts.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.  Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not Accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament.  "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia  is not for you", he said on National Television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false.  If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country.  Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should 'clear off'.  "Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.  Take It Or Leave It.  I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture.  Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.  I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia . However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity.  And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. Our culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.  Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!

"Most Australians believe in God.  This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.  It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.  If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like 'A Fair Go', then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

”This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian Beliefs, or Our Way Of Life, I encourage you to take advantage of one other great Australian freedom ....

“THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE.  We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here.  So accept the country YOU accepted.”

I’ve confirmed the validity of the story, unreported in the American press as far as I can recall, by finding the following story in the Australian press regarding the Muslims’ response, here. Not surprisingly, they weren’t too enthusiastic.

Too bad.

What would be more heartening would be to see our own politicians emulate PM Howard’s approach to this issue – and by extrapolation to the other group of non-assimilators, illegal aliens – and put an end to this perpetual nonsense of the tail wagging the American dog.

Perspective is everything. When most people look at me, at 6’ 2”, they consider me tall. However, to me most of the world is composed of short people.

In the case of physical human height, we have statistical data which reveal that based on the objective criteria, my viewpoint is actually incorrect, as the average height for an American adult male is a little under 5’ 10”, according to the CDC. So we don’t have to cue up the Randy Newman song just yet.

In the cultural civil war in which we currently find ourselves, the use of language is a very powerful tool, as it helps shape the debate. This conflict can be traced back to the Vietnam Era, when a true schism in values developed between the Left and the Right, and for the first time since the Civil War of the 19^th Century fundamental societal issues became contested. At the time, the forum for debate was essentially monopolized by what’s now called the Mainstream Media (MSM), i.e. newspapers and television. Talk radio and the internet as we know them today didn’t exist.

The prevailing political point of view of those influential in the MSM is lopsidedly liberal; this isn’t simply anecdotal as witnessed by people like author Bernard Goldberg, a former network news producer and reporter, but is supported by independent research data also. If one studies the data available, such as here, one sees that not only do MSM members self-identify disproportionately as Democrats, but also view world events and policies through a much more liberal lens than is truly reflective of the American populace at large.

Two very human mechanisms then come into play. The first is a perception of reality colored by one’s proclivities. Child molesters view their actions as a natural expression of their “love” for their victims. Liberal/Leftist reporters and commentators also view their own point of view as the “norm”, and therefore bristle when accused of being biased in their reportage. This distorted perception leads naturally to the second human mechanism, a lack of true objectivity. Just as I view my height as the norm and most other people as short, liberals view leftism as the true standard of normalcy, and their advocacy of leftist ideals as actually being objective.

Thus Sarah Brady and the gun-banning organizations can be called “gun safety advocates” (a benign, even philanthropic, term), while the NRA and gun rights supporters are called the “gun lobby” (a term with connotations of “evil”), all while maintaining a claim to objectivity.

In an Op-Ed piece in the Washington post (here) Robert Dalleck advocates a constitutional amendment to allow the removal of a President from office based on the whim of the Congress, no actual reason required, and uses as his justification the unpopularity of George Bush and Dalleck’s assertion that Bush is a “failed President”. Of course, when Jimmy Carter was President and had a vastly less popular administration which was truly failed in every way, there were no calls for such an amendment.

In an astonishing New York Times editorial dated 26 July (here), columnist Jean Edward Smith takes the position regarding the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) that “if the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values” the Democrat-controlled Congress should take matters into its own hands and “stack” the Court with additional – and presumably more liberal – justices, a power that Congress does in fact have, as the Constitution does not specify how many members shall comprise the Court.

In considering Smith’s column, several interesting thoughts come to mind. The first is the idea that SCOTUS is to somehow reflect “popular values”. The duty of SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of legal issues, not conduct popularity polls. Further, we live in a republic, not a populist democracy. We are governed by the rule of law, not opinion polls. True democracy is three foxes and a hen deciding on what’s for dinner, and is not our system.

Even more interesting is the idea that a Court that has now – by a very slim and undependable margin – returned to some semblance of Originalism fails to reflect “popular values”. This clearly illustrates the true lack of objectivity of author Smith. The clear inference is that the activist SCOTUS that brought us Kelo, Roe, and the original finding on McCain-Feingold is the normative standard for the Judiciary. Of course, this conforms perfectly to the practices and ideology of the Left.

It’s also worth noting that the main actions proposed in both columns – which are in no way anomalous and in fact reflect “mainstream” liberal thought – are dependant on a Congress now controlled by Democrats to take draconian action against the other two branches of government no longer under Democrat control. No such actions or powers were ever proposed for a Congress controlled by Republicans. Further, I’d bet my bottom dollar that if the situations were reversed, and a Conservative was proposing any such actions against a sitting Democrat president or activist liberal SCOTUS, the howl of protest would ring to high heaven. All we have to do is look to the record of recent history, and how the Left heaped praise on SCOTUS every time it overreached its authority to validate a liberal cause or action, to see the truth of the matter.

The only true and objective yardstick we have by which to measure such issues is the Constitution itself. That’s why it’s so essential that as we consider candidates for public office, we closely examine their commitment to true conservative – and therefore Constitutional – values, both in word and deed. Not only what they promise – I’m sure it’s no surprise to anyone that politicians lie, or “spin” – but what their record has been and how they’ve performed in their public life, what policies they’ve supported and implemented, what they’ve voted for and against.

It’s our only hope for winning this battle for the soul of the country.