In Dubious Barack

Steve Sailer, bête noire of the Politically Correct, is on a roll.

Here he dissects the would-be Messiah Obama's racial persona, as reflected in is first biography.

Here he ponders the dubious Barack at greater length.

And here he provides a lucid and cant-free take on Jimmy Carter's Israel book. This last post has attracted some commenters (example here) who dwell in the dank cellars of paranoid antisemitism. Were I a cynic (perish the thought!) I'd say that given the penchant of reflexive defenders of Israel to accuse that sorry country's critics of antisemitism instead of engaging their argument, these chthonic beings are sockpuppets of the AIPAC publicity machine. Alas, I think they are the genuine article.

If It Quacks Like a Duck, Is It a Canard?

Carter has repeatedly fallen back -- possibly unconsciously -- on traditional anti-Semitic canards. In the Los Angeles Times last month, he declared it "politically suicide" for a politician to advocate a "balanced position" on the crisis.

--Deborah Lipstadt

A canard is "a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor. Lipstadt is mistaken here. A politician who advocated anything less than reflexive obeisance to a pro-Israel line would have an abbreviated political future.

Can any observer doubt that there is an effective pro-Israel political network in the U.S.?

Various ethnic groups have or had their own causes (boycotting South Africa, Cyprus, the Armenian genocide, "captive nations," boycotting Cuba), as the First Amendment permits. Some who point out that the pro-Israel network is effective may be anti-Semites; some aren't. But it's no canard because it's true.

UPDATE: A canard can be hard to kill.