Mainstream media (MSM) apologists for the extreme left fringe (Code Pink, MoveOn.org, Air America, etc.) are, knowingly or unknowingly, subverting the nation by becoming the accomplices of their more radical ideological brothers and sisters. How? They are the “bridge” that connects them to the rest of the “body politic.” But is this really possible to do without specific intent, or knowledge? Could such a large “conspiracy” really exist except in the disturbed minds of conspiracy theory nuts?

It is doubtful that there is some secret liberal “star chamber” (other than the “war room” of the Hillary for President campaign) that is working behind the scenes to plot our national destiny. One only needs to look at the multitude of missteps taken by the recent Democratic “leadership” of Harry “the war is lost” Reid, Nancy “self-appointed ambassador to Syria” Pelosi, John “Impeachment” Conyers, Charles “tax-hike” Rangel, Hillary “Ask me a question” Clinton, and others to realize that if there is any liberal leadership cabal that they aren’t the “sharpest tools in the political shed.” However, this does not mean that the collective effect of the shrill, even rabid, Left is not effective at shaping national politics when facilitated by constant, and favorable, media access.

The Clinton strategy of “triangulation” illustrates how a noisy “lunatic fringe” on the Left works as a political strategy to shift national politics toward an overall liberal agenda. It can make what was politically unthinkable, possible. While the radical Left has generally been too delusional to carry out large scale organized, effective political activity within, or in conjunction with, the Democratic Party that does not mean that their impact has not been felt as they tilt the national political debate to the Left. In legal terms, to be guilty of conspiracy it is not necessary for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing. (Or in this case, the far left hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.) This is why none of the current crop of Democratic candidates are willing to alienate themselves from the radical Left. They need them to make their own liberal agendas seem moderate.

The right-left political spectrum (represented by the inferior line of the triangle) is bridged by the political media (represented by the two superior, angled lines of the triangle) which if, “fair and balanced,” does not result in a skewing of political discourse.  However, if the political media caters to radical ideologies due to personal, collective, or organizational biases; the entire political environment is shifted towards the radical end of the spectrum.  The strategy of furthering a “progressive” (that’s code for “radical and liberal”) agenda within the Democratic Party is outlined in Paul Waldman’s Being Right is Not Enough.  Of course, the book’s subtitle, “What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success,” points out that it’s all the Republicans’ fault that such tactics are necessary in the first place.  (Amazon, Audible audio book)

Yesterday was a “bad news day” for Iranian President Ahmadinejad as news of the 30,000 lbs “bunker buster” bomb became common knowledge with the funding requests to produce and deploy a weapon that has been under development for years. (Well, seriously under development since Clinton left office, when the term “penetration” resumed its primarily military, rather than sexual, significance when discussed in the Oval Office.) In a defense “supplemental” budget item, the B2 bomber would be retrofitted to deliver this weapon. Having a credible conventional weapons capability that could destroy underground nuclear facilities could be the “big stick” that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice needs to jump start serious negotiations.  (Fox video Special Report)

The Iranians are not a state I think that will change its behavior….just through talking to them.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Oct. 24, 2007

Naturally, the Democrats, and Ron Paul (R?-TX), are already complaining about this weapon and threatening to “defund” it. Why? Because, they are the Party of Defeat! Anything that could potentially contribute to a US victory in the War on Terror is an anathema to virtually every major Democratic Party leader, with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman, who was forced to run as an independent when challenged by a left-wing fringe candidate from within his own party.

This new weapon system would provide “strategic and tactical flexibility” for political and military leaders according to sources familiar with the capabilities of this “unconventional-conventional weapon.” There will be no need to “go nuclear” in order to terminate, or seriously degrade, Iran’s nuclear ambitions once this weapon system is deployed. It may even help our spineless European “allies” rapidly evolve into vertebrates with regards to their dealings with the religious dictatorship in Tehran. After all, an armed strike against Iran’s apocolyptic facilities would almost certainly degrade Iran’s ability to export oil. “Junkies” can become quite compliant when their “supply” is threatened.

While a single weapon system may not represent a military solution to the Iranian theocratic dictatorship’s intransigence in negotiations to end its nuclear weapons capability, it could certainly be the “catalyst” that results in a “paradigm shift” in our dealing with the current Iranian regime.

Oh, by the way, this is also a weapon that is rumored to be increasing UBL’s “pucker factor.” It’s hard to enjoy paradise with 72 virgins while you are entombed for eternity in a collapsed cave.

Old dogs don’t learn new tricks.  The Democrats, in accordance with their “death by a thousand investigations” strategy since the 2006 election, are calling the liberal dinosaur, Congressman Henry Waxman, back to active duty.  (Waxman has a history of attacking Condi.  See our blog post from earlier this year, Democratic Witch Hunt Targets Condi.)

Within a few hours of each other, all the “usual suspects” in the mainstream media: the New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post, Los Angels Times, CBS, Politico.com - and Iran’s Press TV - were touting the day’s left-wing fringe talking points about investigations of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by the oh-so Honorable Henry Waxman, now that he is the Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.  In a letter to Condi, he’s complaining that the State Department, and specifically Dr. Rice, is “wrong to interfere with the committee’s inquiry” into corruption inside the Iraqi government and the recent Blackwater brouhaha.  Lucky for us this letter was conveniently provided to the press in a fine example of Congressional discretion and a clear demonstration of how Congress can diligently guard classified subjects currently under investigation.

What’s the supposed basis of his theatrical outrage?  State Department officials asked Congress; along with their myriad of staffers, all of whom are famous for rigid compliance in their handling of sensitive and, dare we say classified, information; to treat the information that they would provide as a “state secret.”

Let’s get real.  These are ongoing investigations by the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) and other military and civilian agencies.  And in a country where any of the potential witnesses can get “whacked” faster than a “snitch” in a Sopranos rerun; keeping secrets can mean the difference between a successful investigation and another “intelligence failure.”  Henry is trying to parlay this into some type, any type, of scandal and more television “face time” as he pompously presides of his so-called “oversight” hearings.

C’mon Congressman, there’s a war to fight — and in case you forgot — WIN !    Can’t your political grandstanding take a backseat to national security just once?  Please?

Please note: As far as we are aware, there’s no underlying racial implication to the expression, “The Black Swan.” Rather, it is the title of Nissam Nicholas Taleb’s book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, released in April, 2007. With a penchant for citing philosophers and writers that (with luck) most of us haven’t heard about since freshman Philosophy 101 and Western Civilization 101, the book describes how we all handle, or mishandle in many cases, situations that involve the highly improbable, or what the writer terms “black swans.”

Taleb is a Wall Street refugee who is reinventing himself as an author and philosopher.  How well has he done that?  That’s up to the individual reader, and we suspect, how closely one feels that his treatise confirms, or refutes, their own ideas.

So, how does this impact Condi? In a variety of ways, but the most direct application is 9-11, which he uses as an example of a “black swan” phenomenon.   (NYT Op-ed, from Fooled by Randomness blog)  If Taleb’s theory gains widespread acceptance, there are negative political implications for those, mostly Democrats, who are trying to assign blame for the attack in order to gain political advantage. A key part of their strategy for 2008 will be to try and attach President Bush’s lower approval ratings, fueled by the non-stop 9-11 and War on Terror-related liberal media attacks that pass for journalism these days, to any prominent Republican – Condi included. She is especially vulnerable to being targeted due to her high profile in the current administration and reputation for a “Teflon” coating that keeps her approval ratings considerably above those of many of her colleagues.

However, Condi herself is a “black swan.” Her personal history of growing up in segregated Alabama, seeking higher education, teaching, administering, and a life of public service is itself a highly improbable career trajectory. But when coupled with her ability to ascend to the Presidency one day, her status as a “black swan” is a certainty.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book is available at Amazon, Barnes&Noble, and in downloadable audio at Audible.com

The Democratically-controlled House succeeded in doing what Speaker Pelosi said it would.  In “voting to end the war” (It would seem by any means necessary, even surrender, or worse, “starving” our troops in the field for critical funding.), she is trying to accomplish what, up until now, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and all the Islamic terrorists combined have been unable to do —  force a retreat (euphemistically called “redeployment”) by US forces in the War on Terror.  And all she had to do was bang her Speaker’s gavel to have almost all of the Democratic congressmen (and congresswomen) line up like pigs at the feeding trough as she poured out a mere $642 million dollars of taxpayer cash in order to get them to forget about our troops.  These are pigs that even an Ayatollah could love.

In spite of the mainstream media in full spin mode, the American public will see this for what it is — a betrayal of our military men and women, their families, and ultimately the entire country.  This vote and the pork barrel spending required to make it happen are going to “fatten up” these Congressional “piggies” for electoral slaughter in 2008.  So, in recognition of your legislative “victory,” Nancy, here’s a “Mission Accomplished” banner just for you!

If you want to use this image on your website, or blog, feel free to do so.  (Although, we would appreciate a link back to us.)  Just be sure to copy and save the image to your own server in order to protect our website’s bandwidth.

Negative campaigning is just a fact of life these days on the American political landscape.  Once a political figure starts being viewed as a potential candidate, it is almost a certainty that the attacks and mudslinging will follow.  Take this CBS News graphic, for example.  Newt isn’t even declared and he’s included in negative mainstream media coverage!

When Condi becomes a candidate will she be able to become the next Teflon President?  (Reagan was the first.)  See our homepage post on Anita Kumar’s St. Petersburg Times article.

What are the most likely areas that the jackals of the liberal media machine will focus on?  How can we best prepare for the negative attacks — because you know it’s coming.

Last spring, in a public, State of Washington, post-secondary school, Bellevue Community College (BCC), a mathematics instructor, Peter Ratener, wrote a mathematics problem on an examination as follows:

Condoleezza holds a watermelon just over the edge of the roof of the 300-foot Federal Building, and tosses it up with a velocity of 20 feet per second. (Adobe pdf formatted image of the test question)

Gee, I wonder to whom he was referring? Of course, after being publicly chastised by the Chairman of the BCC Board of Trustees (Adobe pdf formatted document) and later by the entire Board of Trustees (Adobe pdf formatted document); Mr. Ratener, in a public apology (Adobe pdf formatted document), claimed that it was all just a big misunderstanding in a drawn out mea culpa that, while it may have been truthful and sincere, sounded more like the infamous “some of my best friends are black” explanations that were popular with country club liberals who sent their kids to private schools during the Civil Right movement of the 60’s and 70’s. Although, I have to give him an “A” for originality by extending his apology to include what amounted to “even some of my parents best friends are (were?) black.” He explained that he really wanted to use the comedian Gallagher in the question but thought that students these days wouldn’t remember him. So, the name “Condoleezza” just popped into his head — along with the idea of tossing a watermelon off of a Federal Building. Please. It would have been better to just say, “I screwed up and I apologize.” The convoluted logic almost leaves us with the impression, “Does this guy really think that we’re that stupid?”

In this case, if we take this instructor at his word, the incident in question was a lapse of judgement, albeit a serious and offensive one, that appears to have been responded to by the institution’s administration in a reasonable manner. He was suspended a whole week without pay. But instead of accepting this decision and moving on, Ratener has now become something of a cause celeb with whining about “academic freedom” and “freedom of speech” (FIRE article) that make us doubt the sincerity of this teacher’s apology in which he wrote: “I immediately took ownership of the problem.” Yeah right.

There is a tolerance of racially offensive public displays as long as the target is on the right-hand side of the political spectrum. Granted, this is not a major issue from our perspective of Dr. Rice as a potential presidential candidate, but it is just another fine example of the liberal “double standard” when dealing with racial questions and “conservatives of color.” (HNN article, Inside Higher Ed article, Blog - Right on the Left Coast - post)

By the way, you’ll never guess why the final arbitration for this teacher’s suspension had to be delayed. He and his family were vacationing in — France. How cliché. (Seattle Times article)

Ben Cardin, the Democrats’ $4 million man (and that’s just the primary)

In an example of Party discipline that would have made Stalin’s commissars proud, the Maryland Democratic machine recruited and nominated Congressman Ben Cardin to defeat Kweisi Mfume, a former congressman and past president of the NAACP, who - in the opinion of many political pundits - would have been a stronger candidate. Cardin and the party spent almost $4 million in order to deliver a very public “political payback” to Mfume. Moreover, during the primary, before Lt. Governor Steele locked up the Republican nomination, there were rumored to have been “more than a few” Maryland Democrats who felt that a white nominee would be the smart move since the “black vote was in the bag” no matter who their Democratic nominee was. (Another fine example of overpaid, political hacks being wrong, yet again - as evidenced by Steele’s growing support across racial and political lines.) In anticipation of potentially controlling the House or Senate with razor thin margins after the 2006 election, the Democratic leadership feels that strict Party discipline is paramount — so much so that it may end up costing them control of the Senate. What did Kweisi, a Democratic leader for years, do to provoke the wrath of the Democratic Party power structure?

In Maryland, he’s the Republicans’ “Man of Steele”

(Washington Times)

Beltway rumor has it that Mfume’s fall from grace from the Democratic Party of Howard Dean and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both of whom are enthusiastic fundraisers for “their man” Cardin, began with his outreach to (gasp) Republicans while NAACP President. This was viewed as a threat to the Democratic stranglehold on the black vote and a dangerous signal that rabid partisanship was no longer a prerequisite to rising in the Party hierarchy for black Democrats. Kweisi has been quoted, “Not every Democrat is your friend and not every Republican is your enemy.” This is heresy in the Democratic Party.

Kweisi Mfume: betrayed by the Democratic Party after a lifetime of work

The “nail in the coffin” for Mfume’s future as a Democrat was his 2003 decision to nominate Dr. Condoleezza Rice for the NAACP President’s Image Award. How dare he praise Dr. Rice on national television? In retaliation, Julian Bond, NAACP chairman nominated Boondocks cartoonist Aaron McGruder, who would later call Dr. Rice a “murderer” for her role in Iraq.

(more…)

In response to Bill Clinton’s outburst to Chris Wallace on FOX News, Condoleezza Rice set the record straight.  Bill said that he did everything he could to fight terorism while president.  He said he even a left a complete plan on how to fight Al-Qaeda for Bush.  He then concluded that Bush did nothing for 8 months.

     Condoleezza responded yesterday morning.  She said no such plan was left for the Bush administration. 

     Hillary Clinton, in the first lob of the 2008 Presidential race,  defended Clinton’s treatment of the terrorist threat.  She then said that Clinton wasn’t the one who ignored a report titled “Bin Ladin determined to attack within the United States”.

    Condistas already know about that report.  it was discussed during the 9/11 hearings.  Dr. Rice was on the stand when Sen. Biden asked her the title of the report.  After she responded with the title, she tried to explain that the report gave no details about when or where the attacks would be.  Sen. Biden interrupted , of course.  He said he just asked for the title. 

    There is a bigger picture here:  Hillary took this opprtunity to politicize the War on Terror and 9/11.  Condoleezza in her staterments this morning made it cleat that we shouldn’t be finger-pointing and blaming each other over this. 

   We can count on more of this from the Democrats as 2008 approaches.