I've been saying and expecting this characterization to become commonplace since before he was elected. My prediction in early 2008 was that it would happen before the election -- that the Axelrod/Chicago chutzpah would become evident before the election. Boy was I wrong about that. America took a bit longer to figure it out. They needed to see how devastating the chutzpah can be when cut loose nationally as much as it long has been locally here in Chicago.

Chutzpah is the Chicago way. To quote Bogart, "When I slap you you'll take it and like it." You slap the citizens and see how many roll over and pee for you. If most do, then you exponentially harden the next slap.

What Obama may not have counted on, IMO, depends on my theory of Illinois voters. I strongly suspect that many are secretly -- or openly, in some cases -- admirers of corrupt pols. "Man, he sure got his. Lucky dog." And they keep voting for 'em because they share they same aspiration, they're cut of the same cloth. Is that a cynical view of Chicagoans? Yep. But what's the alternative? To posit their sheer stupidity? Whatever. It's hard to explain a people who so seem to deserve the leaders they have. Emmanuel as mayor seems to have inherited a double spirit of Daley's capacity to broach risible non sequiturs when pressed by the press (rare enough). And these are merely accepted and reported -- doubtless to the mere nods of Chicago voters.

So. Weird.

My hope is that Americans at large are not as quick to roll over and pee when the Obama machine slaps them and expects them to like it. He's done that to his leftist base, because he expects they'll do nothing but vote for him anyway. He's done that to the right because, as the touted post-partisan uniter said a mere couple days after inauguration in ostensible negotiations with Republicans, "I won."

And now Dems don't dare primary the guy because they backed themselves into a corner by characterizing opposition to Obama as racist. It'd be to laugh if it weren't to cry for how far we've plummeted on this guy's watch as he's politicized federal agencies, destroyed the DoJ, etc.

Must . . . stop . . . ranting

Another guitar player here, just to me-too the just indignation on display in the comments. Ludicrous. Where's the DISCRETION the DOJ is entitled to exercise? Oh, I know . . . they used up all their discretion letting the Black Panthers off the hook.

Not sure I understand how Münkler would square what he says here with his concern about "the post-heroic society."

He acknowledges that Europe is post-heroic, but apparently doesn't understand that one symptom of this post-heroic state of affairs is how unthinkable such American behavior would be in Europe -- at least, among the unworthy, effete heirs to Western civilization. Apparently Americans aren't post-heroic yet -- though the Obama administration is certainly trying to get us there.

The West's ship has sailed. Literally. To North America. Long ago. Thank God there was an ark. We Americans will continue to embarrass the Last Men of Europe as they embrace dhimmitude in the coming caliphate -- the seat of which will be either London or Belgium.

It's not quite true that mere Koranic doctrine is sufficient to move mobs to murder. If that were true, any Muslim faithful to the Koran would be murdering. Truth is, in Islam the local Imam has a LOT of authority and influence. If 'e sez "go to your homes in peace," it'll happen. If 'e whips a mob to a murderous frenzy, the SHTF.

Focusing on the book -- vile as it is -- distracts us from considering the living, breathing inspirers of hatred in the fringe mosques in our midst here in the West (not much we can do about those in Muslim lands, and Muslims who've reconciled with modernity are not a threat). It's fine to hold views regarding the Koran, but keeping our eyes and ears on those who use it in destructive ways is more important. Otherwise you'd be left with paranoia regarding all Muslims.

Truthfully, names should be named. Anyone can blame the Koran. But names of irresponsible and dangerous Imams should be well-publicized. Often. Until.

Also, many have misunderstood Ann's videos as a "me-too" of Jones -- which of course it's not. Her animus is with Graham's dhimmitude, and her burning is to call his bluff (which succeeded because instead of wanting to investigate her as well, he's ignored her).

Dhimmis are more dangerous than Muslim fanatics. If the latter are enemies foreign, the former can be construed as enemies domestic. Analogy: A healthy immune system meets a vile pathogen and determines to destroy it whenever it surfaces again. "HELL no." A compromised immune system says "please don't hurt me" and has no teeth to defend itself.

If our leaders would be adept at recognizing the enemy and dealing with it, the existence of enemies would be less of a problem. But multiculturalism run amok (I repeat myself) and our bizarre social contract of identity politics give CAIR and its ilk an internal toehold; via our Western idea of tolerance (a good idea) run amok (a bad idea), they can intimidate our pols into dhimmitude, subverting our constitutional immune system by motivating the contrary of vigilance. "Just let us implement Sharia amongst ourselves," whatever.

I don't think Graham's a dhimmi. But dhimmiTUDE is not an irrepairable condition; sometimes it's just a tendency, or an act inconsistent with ones greater values. I would hope this was an unfortunate misstep on Graham's part, an erronious political calculus regarding his public remarks. If we wanted to follow-up, we should hound Graham on "how that investigation of Jones is going." ;-)

Kudos to Ann for a hair-trigger, though. It's one thing to take constitutional rights lightly. It's another thing to be a dhimmi. But to do both at once -- that's a stroke of stupidity that invites swift retaliation from those who know better.

If anyone wants to research the participants further, here's some handy search links for each one. Just something to make some basic checks simpler:

http://whateveriv.wordpress.com/