Proof Democrats Heading for Major Losses in November

From Sean Hannity's:

Rage Against the ‘Breeders'

This is pretty unreal, from Jonathan Last, at Weekly Standard:

Like a puckish uncle determined to cause trouble at Thanksgiving dinner, the Washington Post periodically homes in on the existential conflicts that divide its readership. Earlier this summer, the Post Metro section headlined such a story “With City’s Baby Boom, Parental Guidance Suggested.” The article opened in Capitol Hill’s Lincoln Park, where a sudden outpouring of babies has caused altercations between parents, who bring their children, and childless adults, who bring their dogs, to play in the park.

The Lincoln Park neighborhood is gentrified and expensive—the median price for a rowhouse is in the $900,000s—and the dog owners there are annoyed at having to share space with human dependents. In an attempt to bring peace, a local pet coach who calls herself the Doggy Lama has been holding “dog citizen” workshops to help pet owners learn to deal peaceably with the interlopers. But it’s tough sledding. One dog owner interviewed by the Post said that she wished the kids could be confined to a fenced-in area of the park. “I find people with children to be tyrants,” she explained. “As someone who doesn’t have children, I think children are fine. I don’t think they own everything.”

The Post story detailed similar scuffles in other trendy Washington neighborhoods and generated 479 comments on the paper’s website before commenting was finally shut down. Readers ran about 60-to-40 against parents and children. Some sample entries:

CAC2: keep your nasty little snotty kid away from me, PLEASE!!!! Do not let your stickly offspring rush up to me in Whole Foods and grab my $250 Ralph Lauren silk skirt with it’s grubby, crusty hands. One of the benefits of not having children is not having to wear the Mommy Wardrobe. Do not make those of us who are not forced into wash and wear to pay extra for the dry cleaner to remove child goo. Do not allow your offspring to lean over the seat of a restaurant and try to initiate “conversation” with me when I am enjoying a meal with friends

graylandgal: I won’t make any apologies: I hate kids, especially babies. If parents can’t afford or locate a sitter, then stay home. I am bloody sick of having my feet and Achilles tendon rammed by knobby-tired strollers the size of Smart Cars; I am bitter about extortion for baby showers, christening gift, etc., for droolers who won’t thank me now any more than they will when graduation extortions start; I am nauseated by the stench of dirty diapers changed in public areas because a lazy-ass parent won’t adjourn to a restroom I am tired of “friends” dragging their hyper-active germ-spreaders to my antiques- and breakable-filled home for events clearly meant for grown-ups because, gee, everybody thinks they’re SO cute; and I weary of replying “hi” 467 times to a toddler who hangs over the back of an adjoining restaurant booth because the parents won’t make it sit down and shut up. Bitter? You bet. .  .  . My parents did not inflict me on society until I developed continence, self-ambulation, and social skills.

Knowingly or not, the Post had wandered headlong into a movement that has become increasingly militant in recent years: the childfree.

The term refers to adults—many of them married or cohabiting couples—without children. These people differ from the merely “childless” in that they want the world to know that their situation is not an accident. A spinster or an infertile couple might be childless by bad luck. The childfree are childless by choice.

As you already suspect, the childfree movement has its roots in the 1970s. After Paul Ehrlich’s (now discredited) Population Bomb became a sensation predicting hundreds of millions of deaths as the planet convulsed from overpopulation, clubs such as the National Organization for Non-Parents and No Kidding! sprang up. But what was once a hippy-crank affectation has in recent years become a wide-ranging attack on the societal machinery which supports and encourages baby-making.

More at the link.

Victoria Azarenka

I'm just now hearing about her, c/o Theo Spark:

Illegal Immigration's Impact on Our Public Schools

With Brandi Milloy of PJTV:

Nazi Tea Partiers

Right.

And haven't we heard this song before? Via POWIP:

Why Do Leftists Side With Islam Over Christianity?

The short answer is that both leftists and Islamists hate America and the West. But I'll let Sharon take it from there:

RELATED: At The Liberal Heretic, "“Burn a Quran Day”- Why Americans Need to Take the High Road."

Recovery Summer Bummer

Via Midnight Blue, "Recovery Starts November 2nd."

And I still just love the "Recovery Summer Bummer" rhyme, from Yid With Lid.

Daily Kos Anti-Semitism, And Then Some...

This is timeley, especially since I just reviewed American Taliban.

At Yid With Lid, "Anti-Jewish Hatred From the Folks Who Call the Tea Party Racist."

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs published a report which examines Anti-Semitic cartoon content used in some of the major progressive sites, such as Mondoweiss, The Daily Kos and Indymedia. Some of the content of these blogs pointed out in this report is short of startling. The sites use "political cartoons: to reinforce negative stereotypes against Jews. The cartoons cloak their Antisemitism in a veil "anti-Israelism."

This is not in any way to suggest that all anti-Israel expressions are anti-Semitic, but it is clear that these cartoons have crossed the line. The cartoons show Jews or Israelis as being Nazis trying to paint Jews as the ultimate evil and at the same time diminishing the evil of the Holocaust. Other illustrations try to perpetuate the anti-Semitic canard that Jews control the world, or the blood libel about Jews using Gentile children to satisfy some imagined blood-lust.

This is totally common on the left. I document this stuff all the time.

At the screencaps, the first post has been taken down: "Zionism was and remains a racist ideology." The second I've covered many times, and it remains fully published at Daily Kos, "Eulogy before the Inevitability of Self-Destruction: The Decline and Death of Israel."

See the report as well: "Anti-Semitic Cartoons on Progressive Blogs." And don't forget to add Booman Tribune to the list.

Appeals Court Sides With Bush Obama Administration on Seizure of Terror Suspects

I had to catch myself for a second. Sides with the Obama administration on terrorist rendition?

The ruling is on "extraordinary rendition," of course. The policy for which leftists wanted Bush administration war crimes trials. And now we've got Barack Obama in power continuing the policy. Hey, way to "regain America's moral stature in the world"!

Okay, but according to the New York Times:

A sharply divided federal appeals court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit involving the Central Intelligence Agency’s practice of seizing terrorism suspects and transferring them to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation. The ruling handed a major victory to the Obama administration in its effort to advance a sweeping view of executive secrecy power.

Sweeping view of executive power? How many millions of words were written by leftists attacking proponents of that? Indeed, folks like John Yoo still can't get a break. And there's more:

The decision bolstered an array of ways in which the Obama administration has pressed forward with broad counter-terrorism policies after taking over from the Bush team, a degree of continuity that has departed from the expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of President Bush’s approach.

Among other policies, the Obama team has also placed a United States citizen on a targeted-killings list without a trial, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas-corpus lawsuits challenging their indefinite imprisonment, and continued the C.I.A. rendition program – though the administration says it now takes greater safeguards to prevent detainees from being mistreated.

Okay, but I thought Obama once said of the Bush administration:

"Our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions," he said.

"In other words, we went off course."

Right.

He means our previous government, of course, even though he's now following the exact same policies. The ACLU is criticizing the wrong government as well, the one before the Obama administration:

Ben Wizner, a senior A.C.L.U. lawyer who argued the case before the appeals court, said the organization was deeply disappointed in the ruling.

“To this date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court,” Mr. Wizner said. “That makes this a sad day not only for the torture survivors who are seeking justice in this case, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. If this decision stands, the United States will have closed it courts to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers.”

Let's just chalk this up as one more reason why folks miss George W. Bush. Honesty. Integrity. Moral clarity. Yep, those are the things we had in the presidency before this administration. They were the right qualities --- and the right policies --- at the time. The courts think so, even if the neo-communists don't.

This Is Where We Begin to Say No

From Andrew McCarthy, at National Review (via Memeorandum):

For the better part of two decades, Americans have been murdered by Islamists and then lectured that they are to blame for what has befallen them. We have been instructed in the need for special sensitivity to the unceasing demands of Islamic culture and falsely accused of intolerance by the people who wrote the book on intolerance. Americans have sacrificed blood and bottomless treasure for Islamic peoples who despise Americans — and despise us even more as our sacrifices and gestures of self-loathing intensify. Americans have watched as apologists for terrorists and sharia were made the face of an American Muslim community that we were simultaneously assured was the very picture of pro-American moderation.

Americans have had our fill. We are willing to live many lies. This one, though, strikes too close to home, arousing our heretofore dormant sense of decency. Americans have now heard Barack Obama’s shtick enough times to know that when he talks about “our values,” he’s really talking about his values, which most of us don’t share. And after ten years of CAIR’s tired tirades, we’re immune to Feisal Rauf, too.

We look around us and we see our country unrivaled by anything in the history of human tolerance. We see thousands of thriving mosques, permitted to operate freely even though we know for a fact that mosques have been used against us, repeatedly, to urge terrorism, recruit terrorists, raise money for terrorists, store and transfer firearms, and inflame Muslims against America and the West. As Islamists rage against us, we see Islam celebrated in official Washington. As we reach out for the umpty-umpth time, we find Muslim leaders taking what we offer, but always with complaint and never with reciprocation. We’re weary, and we don’t really care if that means that Time magazine, Michael Bloomberg, Katie Couric, Fareed Zakaria, and the rest think we’re bad people — they think we’re bad people, anyway

RTWT.

Also, the typically lame leftist response at Blue Texan's Crib:

Nearly nine years after Wingnut Christmas, it's equal parts scary and satisfying to see conservatives admits what we suspected all along - they're a legion of racist bedwetters for whom there was never a distinction between invading Iraq/Afghanistan and simply killing Muslims - even though Bush said otherwise.

Bedwet this, you freaking creep:

Behead This, Markos

I tweeted Markos Moulitsas yesteday, with the link to my review of his book: "Misunderstanding Markos Moulitsas and American Taliban." He's a netroots bigshot, of course, so he's ignoring me. Fine. I'll tweet him again a little later. He can "behead this," as far as I'm concerned. (The reference is to the Ring of Fire interview Saturday where Moulitsas claims conservatives want to behead opponents.) The Dems-Daily Kos nexus is up for an electoral blowout of world historical importance on November 2nd. We're going to so thoroughly crush Kos and his neo-communist allies that "demoralized" won't begin to explain the scale of evisceration. Game on, asshole. Yeah, politics is dirty business, but somebody's got to do it. So screw you, commie pig.

The Debate Over Religious 'Intolerance'

I've placed "intolerance" in quotation marks. And that's because poll after poll has found that Americans are not intolerant toward Muslims. The Koran burnings are sponsored by the Westboro Baptists, the same folks who protest military funerals. They don't speak for me, and I can't think of any mainstream conservative that aligns with them. What's happening, as always, it the controversial actions of the few become fodder for attacks on the legitimate opposition of the many. This is SOP with the radical left and their allied MFM contingents. It's messed up, but that's the kind of information stream we're dealing with these days. The New York Times is on the case, by the way. See, "Concern Is Voiced Over Religious Intolerance." And as usual, as Tom Maguire points out, the reporters buried the lede:

They did not take a stand on whether to support the proposed mosque and community center near ground zero in Manhattan, saying, “Persons of conscience have taken different positions on the wisdom of the location of this project, even if the legal right to build on the site appears to be unassailable.”

Susan B. Anthony List Lobbies GOP on Strong 'Pro-Life Language' in Party's Upcoming 'Contract' Campaign Manifesto

Check out this piece from Erin McPike at RCP, "Some Supporters Fret as GOP Readies Agenda." Here's the key passage:

Just weeks before House Republican leaders are set to announce the contents of a proposed governing agenda if they retake the majority, some GOP politicians and grasstops activists are growing nervous about those plans ....

So far, House Republicans have shown discipline and stayed on message on jobs and the economy; there are 16 mentions of the word, "jobs," in the packet. But there are two problems with the current effort: One is the wing of activists primarily concerned with social issues, and the other is the possible size of the incoming class of GOP freshmen who collectively would be the reason for the party's return to power.

Many high-level conservative activists agree that the most pressing issue of this cycle is the economy, but some are not willing to let up on matters close to them, either.

In an interview, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser warned: "To only lead on one issue at a time is a non-sequitur." She added, "That's not real leadership." Dannenfelser's group advocates on behalf of women in politics who are pro-life, and she hopes to see substantial pro-life language in the House Republicans' agenda but is not entirely optimistic.

The 22-page recess packet of trial balloons does include an explicit ban on all federal funding for abortion. That's one item on Dannenfelser's list, but she has two more: requiring parental notification for abortion-seeking minors, and requiring physicians who perform abortions to notify women who are at least 20 weeks into their pregnancies that fetuses can feel pain in the process.

Said Dannenfelser, "The conservative base of the Republican Party is so strong at this moment, the most divisive thing that could happen would be to leave out the family values third of the issue base." Her group has undertaken its own small media blitz, "Life Speaking Out," to lobby the House GOP on abortion issues and prevent the omission. A release announcing the campaign noted, "Missing from the GOP's original Contract in 1994 was any emphasis on policies protecting the unborn. Pro-life legislation was not made a priority in the following Congress."

The group sent a letter to House Minority Leader John Boehner on September 2nd, arguing that:

The protection of women and their children from the violence of abortion and the protection of taxpayers from funding it must be an integral part of any legislative blueprint released by the leadership of the GOP, and should be included under a specific plank addressing family values.

As readers will recall, I take the big view on pro-life issues. And I expect the GOP to take the concerns of groups like Susan B. Anthony List very seriously.

Dancing

Theo loves this:

This is What America is All About

Giving everyone a chance to succeed? Hey, isn't that RAAAAACIST??!!

Hot ad from Allen West, via Weasel Zippers:

'The Reconquista is Here'

El Marco comments on "Machete":

More than just another movie exemplifying liberalism’s self-loathing and glorification of violence, Machete goes further in advocating the radical justification for leftist war against America. Machete is nothing less than Psycho-political incitement to violent revolution against American society and sovereignty.

Crowd at Glenn Beck Rally Seen From Above

I never did get a chance to post this pic, which is awesome. Who cares the exact number in attendance. Folks came out big time. The left's Media-Industrial-Complex just couldn't handle it. And not only that, this is another chance to throw my good friend Skye some linkage.

In Defense of Links

From Scott Rosenberg:

For 15 years, I’ve been doing most of my writing — aside from my two books — on the Web. When I do switch back to writing an article for print, I find myself feeling stymied. I can’t link!

Links have become an essential part of how I write, and also part of how I read. Given a choice between reading something on paper and reading it online, I much prefer reading online: I can follow up on an article’s links to explore source material, gain a deeper understanding of a complex point, or just look up some term of art with which I’m unfamiliar.

There is, I think, nothing unusual about this today. So I was flummoxed earlier this year when Nicholas Carr started a campaign against the humble link, and found at least partial support from some other estimable writers (among them Laura Miller, Marshall Kirkpatrick, Jason Fry and Ryan Chittum). Carr’s “delinkification” critique is part of a larger argument contained in his book The Shallows. I read the book this summer and plan to write about it more. But for now let’s zero in on Carr’s case against links, on pages 126-129 of his book as well as in his “delinkification” post.

The nub of Carr’s argument is that every link in a text imposes “a little cognitive load” that makes reading less efficient. Each link forces us to ask, “Should I click?” As a result, Carr wrote in the “delinkification” post, “People who read hypertext comprehend and learn less, studies show, than those who read the same material in printed form.”

This appearance of the word “hypertext” is a tipoff to one of the big problems with Carr’s argument: it mixes up two quite different visions of linking.

Interesting.

And don't feel bad about clicking away to RTWT.

Feisal Abdul Rauf — 'We Are Proceeding With the Community Center'

Or, "we are proceeding with the conquest mosque."

That's Imam Rauf, at the New York Times (via Memeorandum). And he claims:

I am very sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11, as are my fellow leaders of many faiths. We will accordingly seek the support of those families, and the support of our vibrant neighborhood, as we consider the ultimate plans for the community center. Our objective has always been to make this a center for unification and healing.

Actually, not so sensitive, in fact. As the Imam also notes:

Our name, Cordoba, was inspired by the city in Spain where Muslims, Christians and Jews co-existed in the Middle Ages during a period of great cultural enrichment created by Muslims.

Yes, created by Muslims, for the oppression and enslavement of non-Muslims. As Robert Spencer has noted regarding the "Cordoba Caliphate":

The name "Cordoba" has been marketed to gullible Americans as being a place where Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in harmony and peace, but actually Medieval Muslim Spain enforced the dhimma and systematically oppressed the Jews and Christians, and was the site of a Muslim pogrom against the Jews in the year 1011 -- 1000 years before this mega-mosque is slated to open.

And interestingly, Imam Rauf's essay coincides with El Marco's latest photo-essay, "Islamic Triumphalism: Cruel Lessons From History for New York City - Part I." Pictured below is the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount, which was built to consecrate the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 637 CE. According to Wikipedia, "In light of the dual claims of both Judaism and Islam, it is one of the most contested religious sites in the world." Well, looks like things turned out exactly as planned. As El Marco notes at his essay:

Islamic Triumphalism has a very long and brutal history. The Dome of the Rock represents the first stop on Islam’s 1400 year path of conquest. Today the duel paths of terrorism and stealth jihad are making great inroads worldwide. Most New Yorkers and Americans are only just waking up to Islam’s accelerating push to implant Sharia law in western countries as well as large areas of Africa and Asia. The controversy of the mosque at ground zero has alerted Americans to how Islamic totalitarian Sharia law dictates world domination and the fact that radical islam must be opposed by free people.

Exactly. Sharia. This is what Imam Rauf wants for America. And as the Ground Zero Mosque development continues, sharia is the culmination of his vision for "multi-faith" cooperation — it's happening friends, and with the help of the left's Media-Industrial-Complex and netroots terror-appeasers. See Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, "What Shariah Law Is All About."

'My Trip to Al-Qaeda' — HBO Documentary

It's on, in about an hour:

And see Blake Hounshell, "Is al Qaeda Still Relevant?"

RELATED: I read Lawrence Wright's book when it first came out in hardback: The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.

Carly Fiorina Pulls Ahead of Scandal-Plagued Barbara Boxer — Incumbent Democrat Embroiled in Maxine Waters Pay-to Play Endorsement Scam

This would be big news, at RCP, "Fiorina Pulls Ahead of Boxer in California."

But Doug Ross has this as well: "Say It Ain't So, Babs: Barbara "Call me Ma'am" Boxer Ensnared in Maxine Waters' Ethical Roach Motel."

And Ed Morrissey adds this:

Democrats came to power in 2006 in large part by promising to “drain the swamp.” That doesn’t mean that individual members of both parties won’t commit ethics violations, but Boxer’s position as chair of the Senate’s enforcement panel while participating in Waters’ scheme certainly tells a story about the commitment to clean government in the Democratic Party.

RELATED: "Republicans Now Trusted on All Key Political Issues Over Democrats."

Should Political Science Be Relevant?

It's a question as old as the discipline, discussed at Inside Higher Ed. And it won't go away anytime soon. Political science for the most part is about theory-building and knife-sharpening. Even international relations can be an irrelevant pain sometimes, although I think my subfield has a better edge than American politics, surprisingly. (IR sees lots of cross-pollination from the super-scholarly literature to the popular magazines like Foreign Policy.)

In any case, the American Political Science Association held its annunal meeting over the Labor Day weekend, so there's some follow-up buzz going around. At the image below is Ezra Klein, and also Matthew Yglesias, c/o The Monkey Cage. And my sense is that's another reason for the dismal prospects for political science, the discipline's disastrous left-wing bias. Sure, there are lots of professors who are rigorous and avoid hack partisanship, but as a whole I'm underwhelmed by the attempts. (Henry Farrell was at APSA as well, and earlier this year, after repeated comments at Crooked Timber, he never did respond to my queries on the lies of the WikiLeaks Apache video — such otherwise smart people, so bogged down with deathly ideology.)

Anyway, an interesting passage from Inside Higher Ed.

One of the most biting critiques came from Bo Rothstein, the August Röhss Professor of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg, in Sweden. Rothstein, who noted that this was his 20th APSA meeting and who has held visiting professorships at several leading universities in the United States, said that maybe the problem to discuss isn't whether political science is relevant, but whether American political science is relevant.

"If you want to be relevant as a discipline," he said, "you have to recruit people who want to be relevant." And in this respect, he said, American political science departments are not doing well. He described his experiences teaching at Harvard University, where he was tremendously impressed with the 20 seniors in his seminar on comparative politics. One day he asked how many were planning to go to graduate school in political science and was "stunned" to find out that the students -- many of them idealistic about changing the world -- had to a person ruled that out in favor of law school. Their view was that "to be relevant, you have to have a law degree."

In Sweden, Rothstein said, this would be viewed as a terrible thing. "No such persons" like those Harvard seniors he taught "would dream of going to law school," which they would see as "boring and technical." But while American universities tell those who want to change the world to go to law school, they attract other kinds of students to grad school. "I was not at all impressed by the graduate students" at Harvard, he said. "They wanted to stay away from anything relevant."

America at Risk

This is a Newt Gingrich production (via Gateway Pundit). And since he's got Melanie Phillips featured at the interviews, I'm giving the Scozzafava-backing RINO the benefit of the doubt:

Check the America at Risk homepage as well.

'I Am Tired of Being Told That We Need to Sensitive to the Muslim Culture'

That's Just-a-Grunt, at JammieWearingFool, on the controversy surrounding the planned Koran burnings. And I agree, although there's something about burning the Islamic holy book that doesn't feel quite right. Burning books doesn't feel quite right, come to think of it. That said, I doubt General David Petraeus made a wise decision to wade into the debate on the alleged "anti-Muslim backlash." And I seriously doubt that burning the Koran is going to make that much difference in the level of insurgent recruitment, etc. Americans are being targeted, and jihadis are joining, just for Americans being Americans. Perhaps Koran-burnings do inflame Muslim passions and fuel anti-American violence. What's more likely is that Koran-burnings fuel the leftist Media-Industrial-Complex in its journalistic jihad against the American right. See ABC News, for example, "Anti-Islam Rhetoric Heats Up Ahead of 9/11: Muslim Groups Prepare for Wave of Anti-Islamic Sentiment as Ninth Anniversary of 9/11 Terrorist Attacks Approach."

After reading this stuff, I'm more likely to side with Just-a-Grunt when push comes to shove. The media proves the point. We are caving to PC sensibilities, and THAT's what's going get everyone killed in the end. Not a few ignorant pastors in Florida. More at Bare Naked Islam, "Muslims show absolutely no concern for non-Muslim sensitivities. Why should we respect theirs?"

Democrat Wipe Out

Dan Collins posts The Ventures, "Wipe Out," as the metaphor for the coming epic Democrat Party blowout in November. Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a violent train wreck, like in the conclusion to "The Legend of Zorro" (at about 45 seconds). I can hear Obama-Pelosi-Reid screaming in horror from my house:

Indeed, how about a little roundup to that effect:

* ABC News, "Poll: Revolt Against Status Quo Gives Republicans Record Lead in 2010 Midterms."

* CNN, "Political handicapper ups prediction on GOP gains," and "Another top political handicapper forecasts larger GOP gains."

* Politico, "Latest polls predict a blow-out loss for Democrats in November."

* Wall Street Journal, "Get Ready for an Anti-Incumbent Wave."

* Washington Post, "Republicans making gains against Democrats ahead of midterm elections."

We Will Never Surrender

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Geert Wilders: We will NEVER give in, we will NEVER give up, we will NEVER surrender...Official Trailer Islam Rising."

From Phyllis Chesler: TIME Magazine’s Latest Blood Libel About Israel

I'm going to have to stop off at Barnes and Noble to read the whole thing, since Time posts only an excerpt, but I trust Phyllis Chesler's analysis:

The Jewish insistence on life may be the key to our survival as a people despite ceaseless persecution. It might be the lesson, the model, for all humanity in an era of genocides, civil wars, torture chambers, tyrannies, and totalitarian regimes. Why is TIME turning things on their head and refusing to recognize the courage and the heroism of Jewish Israelis who choose to live in the moment when the moment is all they have? Against all odds, the Jews simply refuse to give up.

Added: I see Time's essay is garnering some attention around the 'sphere. See Victor Davis Hanson, "For the Jews in Israel, Money Trumps All?":

I know it’s commonplace to read in the latest issue of Time or Newsweek that Obama is a god, that Islamophobic Americans are collectively prejudiced against Muslims, that the response after 9/11 was overblown and unnecessary (over 30 subsequent terrorist plots have been foiled, and, for some reason, renditions, tribunals, Guantanamo, Predators, intercepts, etc., have all been embraced by the Obama administration), but the recent Time piece on Israel by a Karl Vick is probably the most anti-Semitic essay I have ever read in a mainstream publication.

Hanson's on to something. See also Bret Stephens, "Time magazine adds its voice to the chorus of those attempting to delegitimize the Jewish state."

Here's more, from Daniel Gordis, "Acceptable in Polite Society."

Obama's 'Like a Dog' Speech at the Milwaukee Laborfest

I spent yesterday afternoon writing a book review of Markos Moultisas' American Taliban, and also watching "The Watchmen" on cable. I therefore didn't pay much attention to President Obama's Labor Day politicking. But lots of folks are talking about his speech at the Milwaukee Laborfest. The key passage is at the video, but be sure to check William Jacobson's longer analysis of the speech itself:

Hearts Are Broken, Everyday...

Linkmaster Smith posted a DOUBLE-BONANZA RULE 5 EXTRAVAGANZA over the holiday weekend. See, "Rule 5 Sunday Part 1," and "Rule 5 Sunday Part 2: Holiday Extra!" The latter is enhanced with some Jewel loveliness. My first baby boy used to play this song over and over on our cheap Sony CD player back in the day. The strumming guitar is kinda like a lullaby, so it makes sense that a 1 year-old would get hooked. I just think Jewel's a down-home kinda woman. Enjoy:

Misunderstanding Markos Moulitsas and American Taliban

Well, folks might have noticed the photo of Markos Moulitsas' new book at one of my throwaway posts this afternoon. I'm almost done with the book. And I was going to hold off on a review, but folks are speaking out on it now, so what the heck?

As far as I've seen among leftists, only Jamelle Bouie's actually read the book, and can thus comment on it with at least minimal knowledge. Significantly, we also have Kevin Drum's comments on American Taliban. He endorses the book while announcing no plans to read it at the same time. And note the ideological affirmation and reassurance as well:

I haven't read American Taliban and don't plan to. I figure I already dislike the American right wing enough, so there's little need to dump another load of fuel onto my own personal mental bonfire.

And that's just the thing. "Dislike" for the American right is SOP with these people. So it's interesting that Jamelle Bouie attempts to distance the progressive left from the extremist ravings of Markos Moulitsas. Only problem is that Markos Moulitsas is the progressive left, that is, he's perfectly representative of the extreme neo-socialism that's become mainstream in Democratic Party politics. Moreover, Moulitsas' endorsement of take-no-prisoners secular demonology is simply the going game of the Democrat Party netroots base. So note two things: (1) Why should anyone be surprised at the content of American Taliban; and (2) why should anyone begrudge Markos Moulitsas for putting pen to paper (or to pixels) to lay out the neo-communist critique of the (perceived) contemporary right wing of American politics? This is what these folks do. The book is an outrage to read, sure, but it's an outrage to read any top blog of the current leftosphere? Indeed, Moulitsas' book reads like one long epic blog post at Daily Kos. Fact is, American Taliban started as a blog post in 2006, and then was crafted into a book. It's not scholarly. In fact, there are no footnotes to document the majority of the outrageous claims offered. What's important to note is Moulitsas' tactic of finding the most out-of-the-mainstream personalities and foisting these off as mainstream conservatives. It's a smear-by-numbers approach that at times pulls in top Republicans like Sarah Palin, etc., adds a couple of the more colorful quotes from said personalities, and voilà! You're got the modern conservative movement 100 percent equivalent to the medieval barbarian Taliban, REAL TERRORISTS who cut off noses of Afghan women and behead apostates from the Islamist creed, and not to mention Americans such as Daniel Pearl. It's absurd, of course. But it's not exceptional. And not only that, the MFM has elevated Moulitsas and Daily Kos to the elite media/Democrat Party establishment. THIS IS the inside game on today's left. So again, this should be no surprise.

Let me just give one example from the book, so folks'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Here's the representative quote from American Taliban, from pp. 50-51:

In the presidential election of 2008, John McCain thought it hilarious to sing, to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann," "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran ..." And the American Taliban's latest enemy de jour, Iran, remains an obsessive target for those who don't believe America has suffered enough war in the past decade. Sarah Palin, for example, thought it would be fantastic as a way for Obama to cynically secure his re-election campaign. "Say [Obama] played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided [to] come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, but --- that changes the dynamic in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years."

These political fundamentalists, whether Islamic or American, have zero problem playing the war card for domestic gain, sending our bravest to die in distant wars as thoughtlessly as they would move pieces around a game of Risk. Such reckless warmongering behavior results in death and destruction, all in the service to their god and their political ambitions.

Yet, as bad as it is when the American Taliban direct such violent sentiment to our external enemies, it is a direct threat to our democracy when aimed at domestic targets.

I've highlighted that last clause, because that really does sum up Markos Moulitsas' thesis and political agenda. To wit: It is not fanatical global jihad that is the greatest threat to the American democracy --- an existential ideological movement that would be sweeping up in triumphant conquest throughout the Third World, and a bit of the First, if it wasn't for American military power standing guard. It is folks like John McCain, a decorated Vietnam war veteran who gave almost six years of his life to North Vietnamese communist torture and imprisonment, and Sarah Palin, a citizen-politician with five kids who was plucked from relative obscurity to be the 2008 GOP running-mate, who now threaten to destroy the American way of life as representative of some kind of domestic warmongering conservative jihad against the heartland. Yeah, you can see perhaps why some folks like Jamelle Bouie might cringe at such non-reality-based diatribes. But Moulitsas isn't an outlier: American Taliban tells us exactly how the left's hardline partisans see the GOP. And American Taliban wonderfully clarifies the scope of political battle for those on the right who actually live a reality-based life, people who know that it's in fact the alliance between Islam and socialism --- at home and abroad --- that is the genuine threat to our prosperity and perseverance. It's chilling but it's fact. The truth is that Markos Moulitsas is not an "embarrassment to the left," as Doc Zero argues over at Hot Air. Markos Moulitsas is the left. And the sooner folks get that lesson down cold, the faster upstanding folks of moral clarity and values will be able to defeat them.

Added: Digby hasn't read the book either, but still feels confident in claiming:

Markos has written a polemic called "American Taliban" in which he draws an ironic comparison between the far right in American politics and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He isn't saying they are interchangeable. That's ridiculous. Obviously, one exists within a secular Western democracy with a rule of law and the other well ... doesn't.

No, Digby, American Taliban's whole point is that the American religious right is perfectly indistinguishable from the Taliban of South Asia --- and the "American Taliban" is the bigger threat to the U.S. than global jihad. Folks really need to read this book and quit lying about what is or isn't said there. Digby is right up there with Markos Moulitsas as a crazed leftist demonologist who wants a revolution to topple the traditional bases of American politics, if not the constitutional regime itself. Don't be fooled by these people. THEY ARE ALLIED with the Taliban, al Qaeda, and global jihad to destroy American freedom. It's plain as day. I write about it all the time. But naturally very few are willing to call it for what it is, and forget about the MFM. They're in the tank. And unsurprisingly, Digby, in a previous post, isn't shy about endorsing the "American Taliban" theory of politics (even though she's not even read the book):

The inconvenient truth here is that these people are dangerous because their worldview is dangerous. Lethal even. And somebody has to have the guts and to call them on it in their own terms. This "tired genre" of "our opponents are monsters" has been decidedly dominated by one side and the consequences have been grave. We have a fight on our hands and the only real question left is whether anyone on our side is willing to wage it.

Game on, as far as I'm concerned. Knowing one's enemies is half the battle, and these folks are putting the intel right in our laps.

Watching 'The Watchmen'

Right now, on Cinemax:

'Resident Evil: Afterlife' — In Theaters This Friday

Well, since I'm checking out Milla Jovovich, thought I'd post the trailer of her new flick, out Friday:

Holiday Hangin' — Beers, Blogs, Books, Babes: What More Could a Guy Want?

Well, Milla Jovovich couldn't make it in person. Otherwise, I'm stylin'.

'Recovery Summer is a Democratic Bummer'

That has one hella ring to it.

At Yid With Lid, "CNN, Rasmussen and Gallup Agree, Recovery Summer is a Democratic Party BUMMER."

Why Won't Barbara Boxer Debate Carly Fiorina?

Because she'll get her butt kicked.

Readers will recall that I covered the GOP primary debate in the spring. Carly Fiorina is hot on the issues and totally polished. She doesn't get flustered at all. Barbara Boxer agreed to one debate previously, and according to George Skelton, she came up short and she's balking at another round. See, "Fiorina Comes Out Ahead on TV":

Boxer, bidding for a fourth term, has never been confronted by an opponent quite like Fiorina. The only one who could match Fiorina's communication skills was conservative TV commentator Bruce Herschensohn in Boxer's first Senate election in 1992.

But that was "the year of the woman," an aggressive organizing effort by Democrats and a ticket led by Bill Clinton. This year, two women are running, Democrats seem unorganized, and Jerry Brown is no Clinton. Voters are cranky and it's the year of the non-incumbent.

This probably will be Boxer's toughest race ever. Currently it's considered a tossup despite the state's Democratic tilt.

Sexiest Bikini Moments Caught On Screen

Celebrating the last holiday weekend of summer. More viddies at the link (c/o Linkiest):

The Myth of the Struggling Antiwar Movement

The old-fashioned understanding of the "antiwar" movement hardly explains the left's anti-everything protest agenda nowadays. But wouldn't you know it, the folks at Politico played right into the sweaty palms of America's domestic enemies with its whitewash of a report: "Anti-war groups battle for survival" (at Memeorandum). As longtime readers of this blog will recall, the hardline anti-American cadres are on the front lines of virtually every leftist protest rally in recent years. From the Stalinist backlash against Prop 8 supporters in 2008, to the Phoenix anti-SB 1070 march last May, the ANSWER Coalition and an assorted bunch of ragtag anarchists, reconquistas, 9/11 truthers, and gay rights ayatollahs have been at the forefront of the barricades. And of course we'll continue to have antiwar protests on every anniversary of our continued deployments, in March and October, for example, to mark the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've covered some of the recent protests in Los Angeles, and it's always the same: An antiwar industry with nothing new to say. For background, be sure to read "The Politics of Peace: What's Behind the Anti-War Movement?" And especially this:

The irony of the modern “peace” movement is that it has very little to do with peace — either as a moral concept or as a political ideal. Peace is a tactical ideal for movement organizers: it serves as political leverage against U.S. policymakers, and it is an ideological response to the perceived failures of American society. The leaders of anti-war groups are modern-day Leninists. As Lenin used Russian war-weariness in 1917 to overthrow the Czar, so American street revolutionaries use reactions to the war on Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as a way to foment radical political change at home ... Their aim is a “struggle” against “oppression” and “imperialism,” code words in the lexicon of revolutionary socialism. Not In Our Name (NION), a satellite of the Revolutionary Communist Party, decries the War on Terror as a Bush Administration ploy: “We will not stop until all of us are free from your bloodthirsty domination.”

The one thing that's correct at Politico is that the end of the "Bush regime" brought a fundamental change to the left. Yes, true revolutionaries don't care if Obama's in power. But folks like Code Pink are career oppotuntists. They've been milking their ties to the Democratic Party to weaken America from within. Funneling money to al Qaeda in Iraq and serving as the Obama administration's liaison to the Taliban in Afghanistan are perfect examples. Don't buy this crap about a "stuggling" antiwar movement for a minute. There'll always be some "racist hegemonic imperialist Zionist project" somewhere to mobilize against. There's never a dull moment.

Sixteen Spitfires at Duxford Battle of Britain Airshow

The sound of victory, via Theo Spark:

The Ground Zero Mosque — What Americans Could Learn from Israel

From Daniel Gordis:

In its basic form, the Ground Zero mosque debate boils down to a conflict between two competing values – American freedom of religion versus the sensitivities of the families of the victims of 9/11.

The freedom-of-religion argument suggests that if Jews sought to build a synagogue at Ground Zero (or anywhere else, for that matter), they would be within their rights. That’s the American way. The opposing view suggests that while not every Catholic was guilty in the Holocaust, and not every Muslim perpetrated the crimes of 9/11, sensitivities still matter. Pope John Paul II had the decency to force the Carmelite nuns out of Auschwitz, and Muslim leaders, too, ought to relocate their project.

Similarly, the mutual accusations are parallel: If you are opposed to the mosque, you are an Islamophobic racist. And if you’re in favor of it, you’re simply insensitive to the pain of those who lost loved ones in the attack.

But we Israelis have learned from our experience that matters are more complicated. One need not be racist or Islamophobic to be concerned about the mosque. For life in our region has taught us that the first necessary step to defending yourself is acknowledging that someone else is out to destroy you.

In the suburban, well-educated, politically and Jewishly liberal America in which I grew up, we didn’t use the label “enemy.” “Enemy” was a dirty word, because it implied the immutability of conflict.

Yes, there were people who fought us, but only because we hadn’t yet arrived at a fair resolution of our conflict. We needed to understand them, so we could then resolve the conflicts that divided us.

I still recall being jarred, when we made aliya, by the matter-of-factness with which Israelis use the word “enemy.” But it wasn’t a judgment or an accusation. It was simply a fact: There are people out to destroy our state, who seek to kill us and our children. And as the intifada later amply demonstrated, they did not yearn for our understanding or our friendship. They wanted our demise.

I have had leftists, here at home in the U.S., tell me that they "wanted our demise." And that's to say nothing of their deeds. More at the link, in any case.

'Operation New Dawn'

From Winston, at The Spirit of Man:

President George W. Bush must be smiling today. He must be proud too.

It is the eve of "Operation New Dawn" in Iraq. The day that the Iraqi people will finally become somewhat independent of US combat forces and will fully gain the control of their country. Just like S. Korea, Germany, Italy and Japan where US presence has secured safety and freedom, a US presence in Iraq will also be necessary for some time to come. Though the former US ambassador 'Ryan Crocker' also believes Iraq still needs the America's enduring support and engagement. Of course, the Iranian regime will always be trying to duplicate its Lebanon style plots in Iraq dividing the country. Therefore that's just one solid reason to keep the US military there for now. But the point of this entry today is not about the strategic weight of today's developments. It is just about emotions ....

Here I'd like to thank the former President George W. Bush for his stubborn and courageous stand in Iraq during all those terrible days of carnage and bloodshed. He stood his grounds and insisted on winning it. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for delivering what he'd promised earlier. This victory is his but on top of that, the victory in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq and in particular to the innocent children of that country. The Iraqi kids can now grow up without fearing a compulsory service in the sadistic Saddam's army. They can pursue their dreams like others thanks to the effort and sacrifices of the American military. Yes, yes the post-war strategy went bad for a while but freedom has never been free. Blame the Iranian Mullahs, Syrians and Saudi terrorists for the bloodshed in Iraq. The Iraqi people, Kurds and Arabs alike can now raise their children in a country where their voices will finally be heard and where they will have a chance at electing their leaders, however imperfect that might be compared to our standards in the west. The future of Iraq is bright. That is for certain.

And let's thank U.S. forces while we're at it.

HAT TIP: GSGF.

God and Gettysburg

From Professor Robert George, at First Things:

The Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the Constitution of the United States of America—those were the three texts in the blue pamphlet I found on the table in front of me as I took my seat at a conference at Princeton.

On the cover was the logo of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, an influential organization whose boardmembers include former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, controversial Obama judicial nominee Goodwin Liu, former New York governor Mario Cuomo, former solicitors general Drew Days and Walter Dellinger, and former attorney general Janet Reno. The new Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was a speaker at the society’s annual conventions in 2005, 2007, and 2008. And inside the pamphlet was a page saying, “The printing of this copy of the U.S. Constitution and of the nation’s two other founding texts, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address, was made possible through the generosity of Laurence and Carolyn Tribe.”

How nice, I thought. Here is a convenient, pocket-sized version of our fundamental documents, including Lincoln’s great oration at Gettysburg on republican government. Although some might question the idea that a speech given more than eighty years after the Declaration qualifies as a founding text, its inclusion seemed to me entirely appropriate. By preserving the Union, albeit at a nearly incalculable cost in lives and suffering, Lincoln completed, in a sense, the American founding. Victory at Gettysburg really did ensure that government “by the people” and “for the people”—republican government—would not “perish from the earth.”

I recalled that in sixth grade I was required to memorize the address, and as I held the American Constitution Society’s pamphlet in my hands, I wondered whether I could still recite it from memory. So I began, silently reciting: “Four score and seven years ago . . . ,” until I reached “the world will little note nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.” Then I drew a blank. So I opened the pamphlet and read the final paragraph:

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Deeply moving—but, I thought, something isn’t right. Did you notice what had been omitted? What’s missing is Lincoln’s description of the United States as a nation under God. What Lincoln actually said at Gettysburg was: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” The American Constitution Society had omitted Lincoln’s reference to the United States as a nation under God from the address he gave at the dedication of the burial ground at Gettysburg.

At the time, staring at the text, I wondered whether it was an innocent, inadvertent error—a typo, perhaps. It seemed more likely, though, that here is the apex of the secularist ideology that has attained a status not unlike that of religious orthodoxy among liberal legal scholars and political activists. Nothing is sacred, as it were—not even the facts of American history, not even the words spoken by Abraham Lincoln at the most solemn ceremony of our nation’s history.

More at the link.

And more history that we don't get from the purveyors of contemporary culture and values.

'Muslim Black Slavery - Islam Slave History of Black Africa'

This video was censored on YouTube, apparently under pressure from those who can't handle the truth, dontcha know. Via Baldilocks:

'They've Got Decap on Speed-Dial Down There'

Man, I missed this last month, but Dennis Miller really unloads with a politically incorrect power-punch here on The Factor. Via Blazing Cat Fur: