The Radicalization of Israel's Arabs

From Carolyn Glick:

As the local and international press corps converged on Jerusalem’s Old City to cover the Arab riots at the Temple Mount two weeks ago, little mention was made of the fact that Jerusalem was not the only flashpoint. In Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Israeli Arab rioters supported by far-left protesters stoned buses. Israeli Arabs firebombed motorists on Highway 443 and on the roads to Beersheba. In the North, cars were stoned.

These little-reported attacks are the consequence of one of the most dangerous emerging threats to Israel’s national survival: the rapidly escalating radicalization of Israel’s Arab citizens.

Over the past decade and at a frenzied pace since the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, acting at least partially at the direction of the Israeli Islamic Movement and with the active support of the far left, Israeli Arabs and Beduin have launched a massive assault on the state. The relevant national authorities including the courts, the state prosecution, the police, the IDF, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Lands Authority and the Ministry of Interior have failed to defend against it.

Firebombing Jewish-owned vehicles is small potatoes in comparison to developments at the center of mass of the Israeli Arab onslaught: state land. Over the past decade, Israeli Arabs have seized millions of dunams of state land.

The dimensions of this phenomenon were spelled out in last year’s State Comptroller’s Report. While the local and international Left pillories Israel when the state tries to demolish a handful of the thousands of illegal Arab buildings in Jerusalem, what goes unmentioned is that by the end of 2007 there were more than 100,000 illegally built structures in Israel. The overwhelming majority were constructed on state land seized by Arab land thieves in the Negev and the Galilee. By the end of 2009, the number of illegal buildings grew to an estimated 150,000. The scope of the theft is so vast that the Comptroller’s Report referred to it as a “national scourge.”

Most of the open land in Israel is owned by the state and administered by farmers, ranchers and the IDF. Farmers and ranchers – particularly in the North and the South, but in areas around Jerusalem as well – are daily terrorized by neighboring Arab thieves. The thieves destroy their fences, steal and slaughter their livestock and threaten to murder them if they raise any objections, mend their fences or install surveillance cameras. Many farmers and ranchers – like most business owners around Beersheba and Upper Nazareth – are coerced into paying protection money to the same Arab gangs who target their fields.

As the Comptroller’s Report makes clear, the threatened and abused farmers have no official body to turn to for help. While incidence of land theft has increased more than 50 percent in recent years, enforcement measures at all levels have decreased by 81%. In 2007, courts issued just 5,400 judgments on illegal construction. Of these, only 193 led to demolition orders. And just a handful of those orders were carried out.

Israel has no official policy for contending with the problem. A police unit formed specifically to enforce land laws has only recruited 55% of its allotted personnel and most of those 64 policemen devote their energies to routine policing duties.

More at the link.

Jaime Escalante, 1930-2010

At LAT, "Jaime Escalante dies at 79; math teacher who challenged East L.A. students to 'Stand and Deliver'." Note this in particular:

Escalante's rise came during an era decried by experts as one of alarming mediocrity in the nation's schools. He pushed for tougher standards and accountability for students and educators, often irritating colleagues and parents along the way with his brusque manner and uncompromising stands.

He was called a traitor for his opposition to bilingual education. He said the hate mail he received for championing Proposition 227, the successful 1998 ballot measure to dismantle bilingual programs in California, was a factor in his decision to retire that year after leaving Garfield and teaching at Hiram Johnson High School in Sacramento for seven years.

He moved back to Bolivia, where he propelled himself into a classroom again, apparently intent on fulfilling a vow to die doing what he knew best -- teach. But he returned frequently to the United States to speak to education groups and continued to ally himself with conservative politics. He considered becoming an education advisor to President George W. Bush, and in 2003 signed on as an education consultant for Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign in California.

Lady Gaga Versus Mideast Peace

From Bret Stephens:

Pop quiz—What does more to galvanize radical anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world: (a) Israeli settlements on the West Bank; or (b) a Lady Gaga music video?

If your answer is (b) it means you probably have a grasp of the historical roots of modern jihadism. If, however, you answered (a), then congratulations: You are perfectly in synch with the new Beltway conventional wisdom, now jointly defined by Pat Buchanan and his strange bedfellows within the Obama administration.

What is that wisdom? In a March 26 column in Human Events, Mr. Buchanan put the case with his usual subtlety:

"Each new report of settlement expansion," he wrote, "each new seizure of Palestinian property, each new West Bank clash between Palestinians and Israeli troops inflames the Arab street, humiliates our Arab allies, exposes America as a weakling that cannot stand up to Israel, and imperils our troops and their mission in Afghanistan and Iraq."

View Full Image
Associated Press Lady Gaga at the 2009 MTV music awards. The global jihad disapproves.
.
Mr. Buchanan was playing off a story in the Israeli press that Vice President Joe Biden had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "what you're doing here [in the West Bank] undermines the security of our troops." Also in the mix was a story that Centcom commander David Petraeus had cited Arab-Israeli tensions as the key impediment to wider progress in the region. Both reports were later denied—in Mr. Biden's case, via Rahm Emanuel; in Gen. Petraeus's case, personally and forcefully—but the important point is how eagerly they were believed. If you're of the view that Israel is the root cause of everything that ails the Middle East—think of it as global warming in Hebrew form—then nothing so powerfully makes the case against the Jewish state as a flag-draped American coffin.

Now consider Lady Gaga—or, if you prefer, Madonna, Farrah Fawcett, Marilyn Monroe, Josephine Baker or any other American woman who has, at one time or another, personified what the Egyptian Islamist writer Sayyid Qutb once called "the American Temptress."

Qutb, for those unfamiliar with the name, is widely considered the intellectual godfather of al Qaeda; his 30-volume exegesis "In the Shade of the Quran" is canonical in jihadist circles. But Qutb, who spent time as a student in Colorado in the late 1940s, also decisively shaped jihadist views about the U.S.

In his 1951 essay "The America I Have Seen," Qutb gave his account of the U.S. "in the scale of human values." "I fear," he wrote, "that a balance may not exist between America's material greatness and the quality of her people." Qutb was particularly exercised by what he saw as the "primitiveness" of American values, not least in matters of sex.

"The American girl," he noted, "knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she shows all this and does not hide it." Nor did he approve of Jazz—"this music the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires"—or of American films, or clothes, or haircuts, or food. It was all, in his eyes, equally wretched.

Qutb's disdain for America's supposedly libertine culture would not matter much were it not wedded to a kind of theological Leninism that emphasized the necessity of violently overthrowing any political arrangement not based on Shariah law. No less violent was Qutb's attitude toward Jews: "The war the Jews began to wage against Islam and Muslims in those early days [of Islamic history]," he wrote in the 1950s, "has raged to the present. The form and appearance may have changed, but the nature and the means remain the same."

RTWT. (Via Memeorandum.)

See also, Betsy Newmark.

America's First Principles

From, We STILL Hold These Truths:

In many circles, especially among the learned elites of our universities and law schools—those who teach the next generation, shape our popular culture, and set the terms of our political discourse—the selfevident truths upon which America depends have been supplanted by the passionately held belief that no such truths exist, certainly no truths applicable to all time. Over the past century the federal government has lost much of its mooring, and today acts with little regard for the limits placed upon it by the Constitution, which many now regard as obsolete. On both the Left and the Right, our political leaders are increasingly unsure of their way, speaking in inspiring generalities, all the while mired in small-minded politics and petty debates. As a nation, we are left divided about our own meaning, unable—perhaps unwilling—to defend our ideas, our institutions, and maybe even ourselves.

From the decline of civic education to the rise of a politics of government dependency, these societal problems are rooted in a deep confusion about the meaning and status of America’s core principles. In the midst of the many challenges we face—unsustainable spending and increasing debt, the future burden of social welfare entitlements, national security in a dangerous world—the real crisis that tears at the American soul is not a lack of courage or solutions as much as a loss of conviction. Do we still hold these truths? Do the principles that inspired the American Founding retain their relevance in the twenty-fi rst century? We will find it difficult to know what to do and how to do it as long as we are not sure who we are and what we believe.

The first chapter is here. And the Amazon link is here.

Hat Tip: TigerHawk.

RELATED: "Patriots Guide: What You Can Do for Your Country."

The New Racial Intolerance

From Victor Davis Hanson:

There is a new racial tension not present a year ago, one having nothing to do with the election of the nation’s first President of partial African ancestry. Instead, never in my experience have officials of the federal government, both in the campaign leading up to their governance and once in office, so deliberately chosen to polarize the country along racial lines.

In retrospect, it seems a sort of nightmare these now serial outbursts of our officials — “typical white person,” “clingers,” “cowards,” police who “stereotype” and act “stupidly,” “wise Latina,” “white polluters,” framed by the President’s pastor and once spiritual Audacity-of-Hope mentor screaming “God D— America,” bookended by hyper-racial comments of a Harry Reid or Joe Biden about Negro accents and cleanliness.

And, of course, soon followed the slurs and smears of those in the media accusing almost every opponent at sometime of being a “racist,” a word that now has as much currency as a German Mark around 1929.

Opposition to health care, cap and trade, illegal immigration, everything I think soon, is being reformulated as antipathy to some sort of Civil Rights issues akin to the legislation of the 1960s. Almost daily now a major media columnist writes an essay alleging someone is racist, or there are subtle racist thoughts behind a type of opposition or protest. “Racist” is a 1950s sort of allegation, an instantaneous judge/jury/executioner/no-appeal condemnation. How Orwellian that the most racist members of American society, who built entire careers of fabricating evidence and defaming opponents — an Al Sharpton, for example — have become go-to national referees of suspected bias. How weirder that one just pledges allegiance to the new agenda, and suddenly one is both more likely to say something racist in Reid- or Biden-fashion, and yet it is not racist at all

Code Pink Terror-Enablers Shout Down Karl Rove at Beverly Hills Book Signing!

God, what is happening to this country? And it's Jodi Evans too, President Obama's liaison to the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

At CBS Los Angeles, "Rove Gets Branded 'War Criminal' At Book Signing," and Weasel Zippers, "Video: Code Pink Co-Founder and Top Obama Fundraiser Jodie Evans Tries to "Arrest" Karl Rove..." (Via Memeoerandum.)

And from Michelle, "Code Pink Mob Shuts Down Rove Book Event":

They’re baaaaaack in full force. The speech-stifling, original angry mob of Code Pinkos shouted down Karl Rove during a book tour event in Beverly Hills tonight — forcing him to cut his remarks short and leave before attendees could get their books signed. Code Pink co-founder/terror-coddler/Obama funder Jodie Evans pulled her old “citizens’ arrest” prank and stormed right up to Rove with handcuffs. She and other members tried to incite the crowd with shouts of “war criminal”

Mama Said Knock You Out! Sarah Palin to Host First Fox News Show With LL Cool J!

At Mediaite, "Sarah Palin To Host First Fox News Show Thursday – With LL Cool J," via Memeorandum:

This is not an April Fool’s joke. Sarah Palin will take her first stab at television hosting when she fronts a new Fox News series, Real American Stories, premiering Thursday April 1 at 10pmET.

Guests for the first show include country singer Toby Keith, rapper/actor LL Cool J and Jack Welch. Get excited.

The show will “focus on a range of such stories including a Marine Medal of Honor recipient who gave his live to save his comrades.” But also there will be the celebrity guests – a very broad range of celebrity guests.

Airing in place of On The Record with Greta Van Susteren, the prime time spot ensures a large audience. And depending on just how large, we could see a lot more of Palin hosting on Fox News.

The program re-airs Sunday at 9pmET.

Also at Mediaite, " Still Surging: Fox News Has Best Quarter In Network History."

Harry Reid Thugs Threaten Andrew Breitbart!

Lots of video at Founding Bloggers. The first below captures the in-your-face threat made by a violent Harry Reid support as the Tea Party Express was rolling into Searchlight. See, "BREAKING VIDEO: Reid Supporters Throwing Eggs And Assaulting Andrew Breitbart":

Plus, also at Founding Bloggers, "MORE SEARCHLIGHT VIDEO – Union Thug Accuses Breitbart of Racism." This one is particularly thuggish. The black fellow argues that the "demographics in this country have changed ... your way of thinking is over." That's more of the conservatism is inherently racist cant. Man, that's bad:

Plus, see also, "(UPDATED) VIDEO – The Egg Man Of Searchlight, Nevada." (Via Memorandum.)

And Allahpundit resists generalization, but this thuggery is totally commonplace on the hard left. We've been seeing these demons in action for over a year now.

The Left/Right Divide: Which Side Would You Choose?

Zombie and I are on the same wavelength, since I've been thinking about the exact same thing all week. See his entry, "Searchlight vs. L.A.: Rival Rallies Reveal Stark Right/Left Divide":

On March 27, 2010, thousands of people gathered in the small town of Searchlight, Nevada, for a political rally.

Just 250 miles away and seven days earlier, there was another political rally of similar size in Los Angeles on March 20, 2010.

The Searchlight rally was generally oriented toward the political “right.”

The Los Angeles rally was generally oriented toward the political “left.”

Now, if you had only the entrenched media as your sole source of information about these rallies, you might likely assume (without even bothering to investigate) that the right-wing rally was an epicenter of hate, racism and craziness, whereas the left-wing rally was undoubtedly about peace, tolerance and rationalism.

Luckily, we no longer have to rely on the mainstream media. In both cases, citizen journalist bloggers were on hand to document the proceedings with eye-opening photo essays:

El Marco: Tea Party Express rally, Searchlight, March 27

Ringo: Anti-war rally, Los Angeles, March 20

Two rallies, not very far apart in time or location — and yet they couldn’t be more different.

I consider myself neither left-wing nor right-wing, and I disagree with one side or the other on various issues — but after viewing these images, I don’t think there’s any question where I’d feel more at ease.

Below is a sampling of images from each rally. (Click on the links above for the full reports.) Scan them and tell me: At which rally would you feel more comfortable?

Show this essay to people you know who are liberals, or conservatives, or middle-of-the-roaders, and ask them: In all honesty, if you had to choose to be associated with the protesters at either rally, which would make you least embarrassed?

They say you are defined by the company you keep. Time to choose ...

I wanted to post it earlier in any case, so I've only included El Marco's photograph of Hannah Giles at top. His full essay is here.

Zombie's got more pictures at his entry, and visit Ringo's Pictures as well.

And recall my coverage of the Hollywood protest, "Stop the Wars! - ANSWER L.A. 'U.S. Out of Afghanistan and Iraq' - March 20, 2010."

And thanks to my dear readers for tuning in here. I'll be back tomorrow with more commentary and analysis.

Oh, Let the Sun Beat Down Upon My Face, Stars Fill My Dreams...

I've been meaning to post on Led Zeppelin since early February, when AOSHQ wrote about Jimmy Page, where he confesses, speaking of the documentary "It Might Get Loud", "This movie really made me want to listen to Zeppelin again...."

I actually used to listen to Led Zeppelin a lot, because I was in high school during the late-1970s, when the band was perhaps at their peak, and their music was inextricably bound with the culture of the day. Still, I hadn't yet become the music bibliophile that I was to became, and Zeppelin's discography remains to this day somewhat amorphous to my rock-and-roll sensibilities. In any case, last week while driving to work, 100.3 The Sound played the entire Side 2 of Zeppelin's Physical Graffiti. So, please enjoy the last song there, "Kashmir":

As always, check out Theo Spark's, "Bedtime Totty ..." Plus, from Anton at PA Pundits International, "Sunday Music – Nessun Dorma."

BONUS DIVERSION: Sir Smitty, "Democracy as an Obstruction to Swift Action is a Valid Point."

RELATED: It turns out that "Kashmir" is on John King's playlist.

On the New Rules of War...

I critiqued John Arquilla's recent essay at Foreign Policy in my piece, "Debating the New Rules of War."

Well, you can hear him elaborate on his theories at the video, from Peter Robinson, "New rules of war with Hanson and Arquilla":

Also, Victor Davis Hanson, who joins the debate, has a new book out, Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome.

Making Sense of ObamaCare

The New York Times isn't the best source of information on the Democratic healthcare agenda (especially if you've been reading the exceptional analyses at The Heritage Foundation), although they've got a couple of interesting features up tonight. Let's call them food for thought.

First, a bunch of stuff from the medical angle, "Making Sense of the Health Care Law."

But see especially, "Early Diagnoses of the New Law." I liked this analysis:

William H. Dow

Associate professor, University of California, Berkeley.

Expanding health insurance to 32 million more people will greatly strengthen our country’s safety net. The reforms will also improve the health of many of those currently uninsured, addressing a national disgrace: the premature deaths of uninsured people who cannot get medical care.

But inadequate health care accounts for just 10 percent of premature mortality. Even with these reforms, our populationwide health indicators will continue to trail those of other developed countries.

Significant improvements in life expectancy will require turning our attention to underlying social determinants that lead people to fall ill in the first place. The next major social policy fight should concentrate on the single most important factor that research suggests will improve the health of the next generation: investing in the education of disadvantaged youth.

The "education of disadvantaged youth" would be my first-pick domestic priority if I could have any wish, and I've said so at the blog repeatedly. What's especially interesting is that a number of the commentators at NYT are seriously questioning the ObamaCare legislation, especially its facility in expanding real health insurance coverage. But this was passed by the Obama administration, and if these idiots have proven anything, it's that no ambition to expand the state and the scale of nationalization is too small.

Senator Al Franken Unhinged

Yesterday I just posted the link to Jason Mattera's Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation at the sidebar. I'm looking forward to reading it. Meanwhile, the guy's getting some play today with his priceless takedown of Senator Al Franken, "Franken Unhinged: Shutting Up Staffers and Journalist":

Rightwing Extremism is Serious: And Boy, Lucky They Didn't Take Down a Skyscraper or Two ... or Something*

Geez, I'm getting linked by lefty media folks all over the place this week. But I wonder if idiots like JBW are gonna hammer Alan Colmes for his verboten cut-and-paste hack job, "Why Are Some Right-Wingers Defending Terror Suspects?":

Is terrorism only terrorism when it’s instigated by Muslims? It seems so, to those who want to give a pass to so-called “Christian” militia groups, but make excuses when it’s right-wing alleged offenders. Nine militia group members were arrested over the weekend, with charges such as seditious conspiracy and use of WMD. So is the anti-terror crowd pleased with the FBI’s good work? Not quite.

I seriously doubt Mr. Colmes read my essay cited at the link, or the FDL airhead who linked it in the first place. (Although, checking the posts, I'm listed right up there with Glenn Reynolds -- so there's that at least.) These folks need some kind of PR victory these days, so exploiting the arrests of some obscure militia sounds about right. Of course, it'd make my day if Janet Napolitano put as much effort into interdicting terrorists like Malik Nadal Hasan and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to say nothing of securing the border.

But hey, can't say she didn't telescope her intentions: "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

* And just in case anyone snarks, rightwing militias are indeed a serious threat. My point is that perhaps Democratic-leftists might widen their field of vision to also take serious the threat from Islamic jihad domestically... some day, perhaps.

RELATED: At NYT, "9 Tied to Militia Charged in Plot to Murder Officers." (Via Memeorandum.)

Also, from Brian Doherty, "The Hutaree Arrest and Getting Tough on Terror From Left and Right."

Voyeur West Hollywood's Understated Elegance

A Michael Steele/RNC/Voyeur West Hollywood roundup:

The Washington Post reports on the RNC S&M controversy, "FEC report details lavish Republican spending, including nearly $2,000 at Voyeur West Hollywood." And at Huffington Post, "Michael Steele Called Tone Deaf By GOP Brass, Urged to Resign."

But what really caught my attention was this passage, from HuffPo, on the "understated elegance" of Voyeur West Hollywood, where RNC insiders and staff visited (although Michael Steele is said not to have attended the club):

The girl at the door sent us in right away and told us to go to a table by the bar and get some free Champagne. Seriously. This club is amazing. There are topless "dancers" acting out S&M scenes throughout the night on one of the side stages, there's a half-naked girl hanging from a net across the ceiling and at one point I walked to the bathroom and pretty much just stopped dead in my tracks to watch two girls simulating oral sex in a glass case.

Really understated elegance here.

Also, Lindsay Lohan was at our table at one point.

Plus, Michelle posts screencaps of Erik Brown's now-defunct Twitter page:

Via Memeorandum.

It turns out that Erik Brown's set to pay back the RNC, "GOP consultant who charged 2K to RNC at risque nightclub to return $."

See also the Daily Caller, "Just a Peek: RNC-funded trip to 'Voyeur' club was an after-party for up-and-coming GOP donors."

Sarah Palin and Reaganite Neoconservatism

Some time back I published, at RealClearPolitics, "Sarah Palin, Neoconservative." As noted there, Palin represents the best of Reaganite neoconservatism.

Thus I'm really excited to see that theme echoed by Norman Podhoretz, at WSJ, "In Defense of Sarah Palin: She understands that the U.S. has been a force for good in the world—which is more than can be said of our president."

What I am trying to say is not that Sarah Palin would necessarily make a great president but that the criteria by which she is being judged by her conservative critics—never mind the deranged hatred she inspires on the left—tell us next to nothing about the kind of president she would make.

Take, for example, foreign policy. True, she seems to know very little about international affairs, but expertise in this area is no guarantee of wise leadership. After all, her rival for the vice presidency, who in some sense knows a great deal, was wrong on almost every major issue that arose in the 30 years he spent in the Senate.

What she does know—and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan—is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn. Jimmy Carter also has a high IQ, which did not prevent him from becoming one of the worst presidents in American history, and so does Bill Clinton, which did not prevent him from befouling the presidential nest.

Unlike her enemies on the left, the conservative opponents of Mrs. Palin are a little puzzling. After all, except for its greater intensity, the response to her on the left is of a piece with the liberal hatred of Richard Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. It was a hatred that had less to do with differences over policy than with the conviction that these men were usurpers who, by mobilizing all the most retrograde elements of American society, had stolen the country from its rightful (liberal) rulers. But to a much greater extent than Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush, Sarah Palin is in her very being the embodiment of those retrograde forces and therefore potentially even more dangerous.

I think that this is what, conversely, also accounts for the tremendous enthusiasm she has aroused among ordinary conservatives. They rightly see her as one of them, only better able and better positioned to stand up against the contempt and condescension of the liberal elites that were so perfectly exemplified by Mr. Obama's notorious remark in 2008 about people like them: "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Be sure to read it all.

It's not just leftists who reject Palin, but the "conservative intellectuals" as well.

Photo Credit: El Marco, "Showdown in Searchlight: Sarah Palin Pals around with Patriots in the Nevada Desert."

Female Suicide Bombers Kill Dozens in Moscow Subway Attacks!

Graphic images of this morning's dual suicide bombings at Russia's Life News website:

The first explosion occurred at a time when the train doors opened, people began to leave, and others - to enter into the car - told Life News police officer, visited the place of the attack.

- I was in a nearby car when the explosion occurred - told the passenger "Red Arrows", blasted the "Lubyanka." - Next door wagon literally turned out. At least 15 people were killed immediately.

See also, "Moscow Commuters Post Grim Video and Photos Online After Bombings."

Plus, CNN's report is here, "Female suicide bombers blamed in Moscow subway attacks" (via Memeorandum):

See Michelle's post as well, "Jihadi Subway Bombing Horror in Russia…Again."

Michael Yon: The Battle for Kandahar, Part I

Go see the fabulous images, "The Battle for Kandahar: Part I":

The Battle for Kandahar has begun. The face of this battle is not one of sudden fury but a process, a complex struggle for legitimacy between local Taliban governance and Kabul rule.

A scent of weakness is in the air. The Taliban remain deadly and capable – yet they seem to be losing the initiative. “Shaping Operations” are underway. Special Operations Forces are picking off and collecting key Taliban leaders. With our increase in troops, the Taliban must spend more time on self-defence, deducting from their capacity for offensive operations.

This year, 2010, is particularly crucial for the future of Afghanistan. The fight is on for key physical terrain, political terrain, and information dominance. Before Christmas, we will know who won the Battle for Kandahar. Who wins this Battle likely will win the war.

Consider a contribution to keep Michael in the field, at the link. (Via Memeorandum.)

The Truth About American Muslims!

Hey, is the administration taking after Christian militias to get in good with CAIR and the neo-communist left? "Daniel" at Attackerman has the headline of the day, "The Sad Truth About American Muslims and Terrorism":

One of the problems with coverage of terrorism and anti-terrorist stings today is that there’s never enough attention given to the Muslim groups that denounce the attacks. When someone of Muslim descent is arrested for terrorism the reporting rarely includes Muslim advocacy groups (which, alas, I fear I need to stress have no link to terrorists and are entirely peaceful and American) that publish press releases denouncing the attacks.

It’s only in situations like the sting today, where the lunatics are gearing up to kill “the anti-christ” who they believe has taken Muslim form (where have we heard that one before?) that the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists gets any attention at all ...

Oh Jesus this guy can't be serious! No link to terrorism! Well blow me down!

Or, no. Wait a second. It's me right? I'm stupid. I don't know all the Internet traditions! This is a joke, a caricature. Gosh, they almost pulled a fast one on me! Those wily "moderate" Muslim (unindicted co-conspirator) groups have really run a number here, or something, considering their earlier (obviously manufactured) boasts of powerful media influence after our recent totally aberrant attacks seen at places like Fort Hood. ("CAIR boasts of influence on media after Fort Hood: Group treated as voice of Muslims despite fresh evidence of terror ties.")

Yeah, that must be it, but just case, see "Despite Record Levels of Islamic Terror in U.S., FBI raids Christian Groups." And, "Amidst record levels of Islamic terrorism in U.S., FBI raids Christian militia groups."

Also, at Detroit News, "Seven arrested in FBI raids linked to Christian militia group." (Via Memeorandum.)

Henry Farrell: Hey, My Socialism Doesn't Interfere With My 'Rigorous' Non-Partisan Political Research!

Henry Farrell, a fairly well-known academic leftist and conservative blog-basher, pretends to be analytical and "balanced," at the Monkey Cage, "Feavered Speculation":

Peter Feaver is a reasonably well-known political scientist, working in the political science department at Duke University. He is also someone of recognizable partisan inclinations, having served for a spell in the Bush White House. This certainly isn’t a problem as such - I have recognizable partisan inclinations (which I try not to indulge on this blog) myself. But it is a problem if it interferes with purportedly political scientific analysis, or, worse, if it becomes a substitute for such analysis. And … well … how can I put this best … Either Feaver has identified an important new effect, which overturns the existing political science consensus that Presidential rhetoric has no significant consequences for public opinion. Or he is allowing his personal druthers and biases - Obama has a reverse Midas Touch! Everything he touches turns to dreck! - to substitute for actual analysis.

It's a pretty wonkish post, with links to current "cutting-edge" research. But for all of Henry's high-falutin' jargon, he's in pretty epic fail territory. The explanation's found in common sense here, less so confidence intervals, statistical significance, or what not. Face it, Henry: Obama's a loser. Can't console yourself in research suggesting presidents only influence things "at the margins." Folks just don't like Obama's signature legislative "achievement," and never really have.

Anyway, just know that Henry would never question his radical leftist cohorts for any potential partisan inclinations. No no! This is about what really constitutes "good political science"! (Neocons need not apply?)

And don't miss Feaver's original essay, "Has Obama Lost His Silver Tongue?"