There’s plenty of media buzz about some select leaks regarding the new National Intelligence Estimate that claims Al-Qaeda is resurging. What’s driving this? Pakistan.

The primary development that has allowed all this to happen, U.S. officials say, was the peace agreement signed last year between the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf and pro-Taliban tribal leaders in the remote region of North Waziristan. The withdrawal of Pakistani troops under that agreement gave Al Qaeda leaders new freedom to operate with relative impunity, officials said. ?Clearly, they are resurgent,? said one senior U.S. intelligence official about Al Qaeda. (The official, who is familiar with the NIE?s findings, asked not to be identified because the document remains classified.)

Previous: With Friends Like These

The global warming hysteria marches on. The latest victim? Baseball. Well, baseball bats. Or so says this NYT’s headline: Balmy Weather May Bench a Baseball Staple.

First, the article builds up with some dire warnings about the future of the ash tree:

Careers at stake with each swing, baseball players leave little to sport when it comes to their bats. They weigh them. They count their grains. They talk to them.

But in towns like this one, in the heart of the mountain forests that supply the nation?s finest baseball bats, the future of the ash tree is in doubt because of a killer beetle and a warming climate, and with it, the complicated relationship of the baseball player to his bat.

Wait. Did you catch that? Who said anything about a killer beetle?!? The headline promised me balmy weather was to blame! But I’m getting ahead of myself. After all, surely they are going to tell us that warmer weather is what has brought about the introduction of this new beetle threat to America’s pastime. Let’s find out:

Some scientists, however, do see a threat to the quality of the northern white ash posed by rising temperatures over a period of decades. Ash that grows in the warmer Southeastern States is held to be softer, in part because of the longer growing season, said Ron Vander Groef, who runs a factory in Dolgeville, N.Y., which make Rawlings bats.

There are also some concerns that the numbers of white ash trees in the North could significantly decline. Louis R. Iverson, a research landscape ecologist with the United States Forest Service, has helped map how habitat changes could affect 134 tree species by the end of the century. In a worst-case scenario, the white ash (and the sugar maple) diminish in numbers and shift farther north.

Still, the emerald ash borer, or Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, is the most immediate threat. Discovered in the United States near Detroit in 2002, the beetles, which are shiny green, will destroy a tree in two to three years. The larvae tunnel inside the trees, cutting off water and food.

The ash borer is native to Asia, where the trees are naturally resistant to it.

?It just doesn?t look good,? Dan Herms, an associate professor of entomology at Ohio State University, said of the prospect of stopping the beetle in this country. ?The current technology won?t be able to stop it.?

Dr. Herms strongly disputes any link between the ash borer and climate change, saying that the beetle has survived in a wide range of temperatures in Asia.

Story: “the emerald ash borer . . . is the most immediate threat”
Headline: Balmy Weather May Bench a Baseball Staple

Got it? Didn’t think so.

So, since we were given no evidence that temperature has anything to do with the introduction of this beetle bearing baseball bat bane into America, what is climate change doing in this story? In the context of this article, it’s really doing nothing. But that’s not a complete answer, or it wouldn’t be included. It must be doing something. But what?

What you are seeing here is a very subtle form of indoctrination. The MSM is attempting to make a back door argument that it is incapable of substantiating if it were simply to talk about the subject in an honest and direct fashion. Every time this or any other article talks about the “impact of rising temperatures” they are buttering you up to accept an idea that they are incapable of substantiating. So while you’re watching their little puppet dance around the stage, they are hoping and praying (to the Great Goracle, no doubt) that you won’t ask about the man holding the strings. Unfortunately for them, I’ve trained myself to weed through their propaganda and am capable of seeing the man behind the stage; and I know what he’s doing. So I’ll ask that question they don’t want you to realize even needs asking.

What rising temperatures?

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter apologized Monday for his telephone number showing up on the old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates, the alleged prostitution ring run in the nation’s capital by Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

The leftwing blogs go nuts about this stuff. “Look at the misconduct! Look at the hypocrisy!” Indeed it appears that her clients among the political elite are mostly Republican, which is terribly baffling. I don’t know why this is the case, intuitively I’d predict the distribution to be much more even between the parties. Let’s be real, the Vatican isn’t exactly scouring capitol hill for candidates for sainthood. This is a weakness of the flesh, not a matter of political philosophy. The question remains - why are we only hearing about republicans?

I downloaded a few of her phone records to look up some of the phone numbers myself - maybe get lucky and turn up a democrat. Then I learned that it will cost you anywhere from $10-$15 to put a name with a phone number (I checked intellius and others). It then became clear that I could spend my entire life savings identifying these phone numbers and not even dent the list.

Then the answer came to me. Who has the time and money to comb these lists and identify these people? Try democrat activists. These people are well funded and have nothing better to do. Remember Mike Gehke’s “Macaca strategy”:

As the new Research Director at the DNC, I’m working to build a Party apparatus that can immediately respond to missteps, lies, and scandals of the 2008 election cycle, and establish a narrative that our party’s nominee can use when the primary season ends.

Just as you helped put organizers on the ground in all 50 states, you can help build the Democratic Party’s research shop. Make a donation today:

Do you remember the George Allen “macaca” video?

That piece of coverage played an instrumental role in the election of Senator Jim Webb in Virginia — and winning back the Senate in 2006. But this turning point in Senator Webb’s campaign would not have been possible without his dedicated staff members following George Allen’s every move — and this costs money.

Or I could be wrong and there actually are only republicans on this list and the media is dutifully reporting it.

In either case - shame, shame, shame on these Republicans. And shame on the democrats for their phony moral outrage.

“Don’t look at me, I’m not into call girls” says Barney Frank (D), former man-pimp.

Those not belonging to the cult of man-made global warming should be put to death, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy’s son, who grew hoarse from shouting. “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.”

The penalty for treason is death. Robert Kennedy Jr. is thus, in calling for treating them as traitors, advocating death for his policy opponents. Will we see any media outrage? Doubtful, as the author of this particular fluff piece found the comment unworthy of further consideration.

What I want to know is: When will the rabid left stop questioning the patriotism of those with whom they disagree?

The left has collectively been diagnosed with a severe case of Bush Derangement Syndrome since immediately following the 2000 election. But there’s a new epidemic spreading amongst the liberal elites in response to Bush’s remaking of the Supreme Court. Court followers who recognize Robert’s style as judicially cautious and resistant to major changes must find the leftist outrage baffling, but that’s because they don’t understand how the liberal mind works. To them, John Roberts is evil not because of how he interprets law, but by who wins and loses in those choices. In typical liberal fashion, the legal merits of the cases Roberts’ has helped decide are irrelevant when compared to the advancement of the left wing agenda. As such, they have gone absolutely haywire following a recent rash of carefully considered and well founded Supreme Court decisions. I call this new form of leftist hysteria Roberts Derangement Syndrome.

Exhibit A: Helen Thomas cries that the Supreme Court is “meaner”. Not surprisingly, the basis for her attack is not sound judicial evidence or argument, but simply raw left-wing emotionalism.

Before closing down for the summer last month, the high court tossed out a flurry of decisions that overturned or reinterpreted long-standing liberal precedents.

The court under Chief Justice John Roberts seems intent on rolling back advances in race and gender relations that have helped America achieve a more equal and humane society.

The 5-4 decisions of the conservative court dealt with race, abortion, free speech, church-state relations and a host of other issues. They also showed a pro-business and anti-consumer slant.

The majority justices are running counter to the current trend against right-wing ideologues and a power-grabbing unilateral presidency.

On race, the court apparently has decided to return to the “good old days” when separate was considered equal when it came to racial segregation, a concept that the high court discarded in the 1954 landmark decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kan., which desegregated the nation’s schools.

Last week, the Supreme Court junked the Brown rule when it struck down the use of race in school admissions in Seattle and Louisville. Officials had used race as a factor in school assignments in order to build diversity.

The historic Brown ruling paved the way for the banning of segregated public facilities, hotels, restaurants and theaters.

The stupidity of Helen Thomas will never cease to amaze. Justice Thomas addressed just this sort of nonsensical demagoguery in his concurrence, previously highlighted here.

Exhibit B: E. J. Dionne has slammed down the liberal stave and declared “You shall not pass (another competent jurist)!”

Just say no.

The Senate’s Democratic majority — joined by all Republicans who purport to be moderate — must tell President Bush that this will be their answer to any controversial nominee to the Supreme Court or the appellate courts.

The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush’s next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees.

. . .As for the Supreme Court, we now know that the president’s two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, are exactly what many of us thought they were: activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution. Yesterday’s 5 to 4 ruling tossing out two school desegregation plans was another milestone on the court’s march to the right.

Even after he was confirmed, Roberts was talking about something other than the 5 to 4 conservative court we saw this year on case after case. In a speech at Georgetown University Law School in May 2006, Roberts rightly argued that “the rule of law is strengthened when there is greater coherence and agreement about what the law is.” It’s a shame this quest for broader majorities had so little bearing on the 2007 Roberts-led court.

As usual, we see another ignorant liberal. To call Roberts and Alito activists shows a laughable understanding of recent court decisions. In fact, Roberts has practiced self restraint (I would argue too much) and attempted to craft narrow decisions. The recent term has seen many unanimous decisions. Dionne blames Roberts for the few narrowly decided cases, but the reality is that the liberal minority simply refuses to follow the law, and is more concerned with outcomes than being good jurists. This is a typical fault of the left, who sees the court not as the arbiter of law that it is, but as a tool to promote leftist policies that cannot get passed by the Constitutionally prescribed means.

I propose that we “just say no” to moron liberals commenting on things they clearly don’t understand.

One aspect of the war against radical jihad hardly ever covered in major media is the growing number of cyber-terrorist communities. Terrorist forums pop up and then disappear again with regularity. These forums play host to propaganda videos, training manuals and any other information the budding jihadist might find useful. On one such forum, 45 doctors belonging to the religion of peace described how they would wage jihad within the U.S.

A group of 45 Muslim doctors threatened to use car bombs and rocket grenades in terrorist attacks in the United States during discussions on an extremist internet chat site.

Police found details of the discussions on a site run by one of a three-strong “cyber-terrorist” gang.

. . .One message read: “We are 45 doctors and we are determined to undertake jihad and take the battle inside America.

“The first target which will be penetrated by nine brothers is the naval base which gives shelter to the ship Kennedy.” This is thought to have been a reference to the USS John F Kennedy, which is often at Mayport Naval Base in Jacksonville, Florida.

The message discussed targets at the base, adding: “These are clubs for naked women which are opposite the First and Third units.”

Of course, this could just be Karl Rove creating these sites so that the Bushy McHitlerburton regime can fool us gullible warmongering wingnuts into believing there are actually terrorists trying to kill us.

Hat tip: Threats Watch

While the Islamist war against the West heats up on British soil, the cross-Atlantic relationship is cooling considerably. The new Prime Minster’s appointment of Sir Mark Malloch Brown to a key foreign ministry post does not bode well for the future of our cross-Atlantic relationship.

As a U.N. official, Malloch Brown was an outspoken critic of American leadership on the world stage and a constant thorn in the side of the United States. He launched an unprecedented attack on Washington’s approach to the U.N. in a speech in New York in June 2006, despite the fact that Washington gives over $5 billion a year to the U.N. system–more than France, Germany, China, Canada, and Russia combined. Malloch Brown warned of the “serious consequences of a decades-long tendency by U.S. Administrations of both parties to engage only fitfully with the U.N.” and condemned “the prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics.” He singled out for particular criticism Washington’s decision to opt out of joining the disastrous new U.N. Human Rights Council, despite the fact that it was no better than the discredited former Human Rights Commission.

Malloch Brown could barely disguise his contempt for the American public and media, speaking of “unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping” and a “U.S. heartland [that] has been largely abandoned to its [the U.N.’s] loudest detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.” What was needed in response, he argued, was for America’s leaders to support the U.N. “not just in a whisper but in a coast to coast shout, that pushes back the critics domestically, and wins over the skeptics internationally.”

As happens quite frequently, the “conventional wisdom” has been turned on its head due to the recent terror attacks in Great Britain. The common leftist refrain goes something like this: “Terrorists are just angry because they are poor. The West uses all the world’s resources and has most of the worlds wealth (aside: ignore the economic stupidity of this statement, we don’t want to get sidetracked). These people are poor, uneducated and without hope; that is why they attack us!”

Like most liberal utterances, this one has been shown time and time again to be false. Not only has this canard been anecdotally contradicted by things like doctors trying to blow themselves and their cars up in a blaze of Islamist glory, but it has been academically addressed as well.

In a journal article titled, “Education, Poverty and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?”, Krueger and Maleckova report the following:

. . .[T]he available evidence indicates that, compared with the relevant population, members of Hezbollah’s militant wing or Palestinian suicide bombers are at least as likely to come from economically advantaged families and have a relatively high level of education as to come from the ranks of the economically disadvantaged and uneducated.

Qualitative studies of participants in terrorism in several different settings have reached conclusions similar to ours. For example, Russell and Miller (1983) assembled demographic information on more than 350 individuals engaged in terrorist activities in Latin America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East from 1966 to 1976, based on neTvspaper reports. Their sample consisted of individuals from 18 revolutionary groups known to engage in urban terrorism, including the Red Army in Japan, Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany, Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, Red Brigades in Italy and People’s Liberation Army in Turkey. Russell and Miller found: “[TI he vast majority of those individuals involved in terrorist activities as cadres or leaders is quite well educated. In fact, approximately two-thirds of those identified terrorists are persons with some university training, university graduates or postgraduate students.” They also report that more than two-thirds of arrested terrorists “came from the middle or upper classes in their respective nations or
areas.” Taylor (1988) likewise concludes from his survey of the literature: “Neither social background, educational opportunity or attainment seem to be particularly associated with terrorism.”

The cause of terrorism is political. In the case of Islamic terrorism, the politics are being driven by certain religious beliefs. As a consequence, we cannot defeat terrorism simply by improving the economic living conditions of those committing it as many often claim. The way to defeat an ideology is to push a better ideology. This has proven to be a paralyzing prospect for the West, as so many have invested so much intellectual capital advancing the wishy washy doctrine of moral relativism, that no ideology is better than any other. The West cannot win this fight until it shows that it believes in itself.