It was only a matter of time. Having achieved the highest news network ratings in the United States, the time has come for the Fox plot. The asset is former Alaskan Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The goal is to employ her at the network, providing her the perfect platform from which to preach to tens of millions on a routine basis. The news no longer needs to cover Palin, now Palin is inside of it and can ostensibly ‘cover herself’.

If Palin leaves the network, which she has just joined, and returns to the political arena in the future, then this step can be viewed as the first in a highly orchestrated coup d’état. Using a position within the conservative media sphere, Palin, the asset, will be transformed into the new face of the movement, backed by an unknown amount of money written off as a ‘salary’ rather than a political investment. In short, Palin’s agreement to work for Fox could very well represent a move by a major media conglomerate to not merely support, but literally control, a possible candidate for the Presidency in 2012. Because if Palin receives the right sort of response and exposure while working for the network over the next few years, the Republicans will have no choice but to seriously consider her as their frontrunner.

Am I being a conspiracy theorist? Time will tell.

January 11, 2010

I get up and with a hand spin the globe, cover my eyes, and point. Here’s some of the world today…

Michael Connell, a Republican operative that had been called to testify in US federal court concerning a lawsuit claiming he actively took part in tampering with Ohio’s voting results in 2004, was recently killed when the small plane that he was piloting crashed into a suburb of Akron. Interestingly, according to a Cleveland CBS affiliate station, Connell, who was an experienced pilot, had been warned by a friend not to fly his plane for fear of it being sabotaged.

Oil has fallen to $39 a barrel, down 74% since July. US home sales have fallen to an 18-year low.

Human rights activist Jestina Mukoko, who has been ‘missing’ for the last three weeks, conveniently resurfaced in a Harare courtroom today and is being charged by the Zimbabwean government of “attempting to recruit people for military training to try to overthrow the government.” Mukoko was abducted from her home in early December by armed, plain-clothed men identifying themselves as policemen according to Amnesty International. Three of Mukoko’s colleagues were also arrested in late November while working at clinics offering treatment to cholera victims. The head of the Zimbabwe Peace Project, Mukoko’s group is involved in monitoring and documenting human rights abuses in the country.

Justin Raimondo comments on the purges at the American Enterprise Institute – also known as the ninth plane of think tank hell.

Peter Erlinder comments on the failures of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda…

“The real news was that ALL of the top Rwandan military officers, including the supposedly infamous Colonel Bagosora, were found not guilty of conspiracy or planning to commit genocide. And Gen. Gratien Kabiligi, a senior member of the general staff was acquitted of all charges! The others were found guilty of specific acts committed by subordinates, in specific places, at specific times – not an overall conspiracy to kill civilians, much less Rwandan-Tutsi civilians.”

Lastly, and of significance, I am out of vanilla flavoured coffee cream.

December 24, 2008 4 Comments

Another day in paradise. The rivers are flowing backwards, the rain falling upwards, and the North Koreans have, for the second time, been removed from the auspicious Axis Of Evil.

Meanwhile, John McCain, to his credit, found himself defending Barack Obama at a recent Republican Party rally. One woman in the audience actually claimed that she didn’t trust Obama because “he’s an Arab”, after which Senator McCain quickly took the microphone away from her.

Of course, what would it matter if anyone running for the Presidency were an Arab American? It wouldn’t. Unless, that is, you’re the sort of bigot that believes that race somehow automatically infers that someone is, for example, a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.

If McCain is to be given credit for anything said at that rally it’s certainly the following…

“…but I have to tell you…I have to tell you…he is a decent person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States.”

Boos and jeering followed as McCain continued talking.

October 11, 2008 34 Comments

As the folks over at Crooks And Liars have been pointing out, Chris Matthews, like him or dislike him, has been rightly admonishing Republicans supporting Mr. McCain for distancing themselves from the responsibilities of the current administration, and the Republican party itself, regarding the current economic crisis. In a recent interview with Congressman Eric Cantor, Matthews said…

“The way we keep score in American politics is the party that’s in power for eight years and runs the White House — and 3/4 of the time runs the Congress and the White House — takes the heat when things go bad. Congressman Cantor, you’re trying to change the rules now and saying, ‘oh, if we take off our uniforms and don’t say we’re Republicans this week, the people will be fooled.’ I’ve never heard of that happening in politics.”

Matthews did the same thing in another recent interview with McCain Senior Policy Advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer…

“Matthews: But I don’t understand – John McCain is the nominee of the Republican Party.

Pfotenhauer: Yes.

Matthews: He’s going to stand in that debate next Friday night on the 26th, because he is the nominee of the Republican Party. That’s why he has a 50/50 chance of winning this election. Because he is the nominee of the Republican Party and the other guy is the nominee-Barack Obama-of the Democratic Party. How can you run away from the party whose platform you’re running on? I don’t understand how you can deny that you’re the in party, you’re the incumbent party.”

September 17, 2008 8 Comments

During an interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Parlin was asked flat out whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. Her answer? Well, that’s where things get scary…

“GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.”

First, a little reality check here. This is an individual that is running to become the second most powerful person in the most powerful country on the planet. Her running mate, if he wins, will become the oldest President in American history and has a serious list of past health issues. The chance that Palin could become President before the end of McCain’s first term is not, by any means, an impossibility.

That said; this is a person who obviously has absolutely no clue whatsoever how the current foreign policy doctrine of the United States came into being. Her answer betrays that fact simply because she credits it as the President’s vision. The Bush Doctrine is Bush’s only in name, nothing more. In truth, it’s primarily based on the Wolfowitz Doctrine and existed prior to both Bush taking office and 9/11. If we’re to get technical, its roots lay in Wolfowitz’s ‘Defense Planning Guidance’ that was originally commissioned by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.

During the Clinton Administration the doctrine was kept alive by a collective of neoconservatives, but one name that never appeared on any PNAC statement or letter of support was that of George W. Bush.

So enter Sarah Palin, junior Governor of Alaska, and her convoluted response to an extremely crucial question. She does not mention unilateralism nor preemption. In fact, she does not address any of the doctrine’s fundamental principles whatsoever. Instead she employs base common ambiguities finishing with the inclusion of talking points that reveal her ignorance by basically stating that while there have been setbacks, to the doctrine’s guiding principles I would assume, there’s room for improvement.

September 11, 2008 68 Comments