Politics in America has been transformed from being merely crass and corrupt into being overtly suicidal and wildly insane. Believe it or not: the future of the Democratic Party now depends upon the United States losing the War in Iraq.

Anything less than bitter defeat for US troops and outright triumph for Muslim extremists may lead to a Republican victory in the 2008 elections.

For Democrats, Victory in Iraq would be intolerable; their defeatism would have been proven wrong. They would be exposed as unpatriotic fools and cowards. For them, a win in Iraq is simply not an option.

This might not mean much, except that the Democratic Party now controls Congress and is supported by the vast persuasive power of the liberal media, the entertainment elites, and the universities.

Betting on US victory in Iraq is no longer a safe wager. So its time to adjust one’s investment strategy in expectation of a US defeat in Iraq and a consequent nuclear attack on a major city, probably New York.

Bearing Any Burden or Hardship — To Ensure Defeat

I  am struck by the lone, pathetic figure of Senator Joe Lieberman, now an outcast from his party, wistfully longing for the days of Franklin Roosevelt, Scoop Jackson, and John Kennedy, when a Democratic politician actually declared:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Those days are gone forever.

Although Democratic politicians still give sniveling lip service to “supporting the troops”, they are loathe to go so far as to support the commander of the troops, or any tactics or strategy that might lead to victory, or to endorse the purpose of the war (which might imply that soldiers had not died in vain), or even to assure fighting men and women that they won’t be cut off without funds, left in harms way, scrambling to escape, as Democrats did to troops in Vietnam.

Nor will Democratic politicians shrink from giving aid and comfort to the enemy by telling them their intention of stopping military funding, or to call for a vote of no-confidence on the purpose of the war or any policies that might lead to victory, or from cheering when the New York Times reveals state secrets to Al Queda, or from promising to impeach the Commander in Chief, presumably for the “high crime and misdemeanor” of attempting to protect the American people from a vicious enemy, or from blaming the war entirely on George Bush being “stubborn and arrogant” and misusing power, as Hillary Clinton did recently in an Arab newspaper.

Over the next two years, hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on anti-American propaganda, not by Al Queda, but by the Democratic Party, intent on undermining the US Commander in Chief in time of war, drumming up support for impeachment and immediate withdrawal at all costs.

These millions in defeatist advertising will be multiplied many times over by “free propaganda” from American media barons who are absolutely determined that Republicans must not win in 2008, no matter what the cost to the nation.

As the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, revealingly proclaimed, “The president has said that this [war against Al Qaeda] is going to be left to his successor. I think it’s the height of irresponsibility and I resent it.”

Of course, she resents it! The very idea that she might become president and assume the role of Commander in Chief with an actual war to fight is repugnant, not only to her, but to any rational person who understands that she is simply not up to the task.

She longs for the ‘piping times of peace’ when she can wile away long summer afternoons in the White House, dreaming up health care schemes and ways to tax the middle class.

A Sign of the Times: Jane Fonda is Back!

The stench of defeat in Vietnam whiffs through the halls of Congress.

Jane Fonda, notorious for giving aid and comfort to the enemy in Hanoi two generations earlier, is back, again urging defeat and surrender.

As is John Kerry, the ‘Winter Soldier’ and one-time presidential contender, calling for retreat from a safe spot on the Senate floor.

Now the one thing that still gets in the way of quick and sure defeat is this annoying crap about “supporting the troops”. The Democrats just hate it, but they still have to say, “I support the troops”, no matter how patently false that sounds.

But wait, if Hanoi Jane is back, why not dig up something like the massacre of My Lai? That shouldn’t be too hard for the enterprising boys and girls in the US press. Surely, some gory pictures of dead Iraqi women and children can be found to blame on US troops, and with the media in full bay, calling for an “investigation”, it shouldn’t be too hard to turn American soldiers into villains, unworthy to defend the country.

It doesn’t need to be true: it’s the thought that counts.

With this, our ‘leaders’ in Hollywood and Harvard can practice hawking up phlegm in their throats, getting primed to spit on returning troops. That should put the crowning touch to defeat.

Ridiculous? Don’t bet on it. The Democrats have to win at all costs, and, as the saying goes, politics ain’t bean bag.

Sell Manhattan Real Estate — While There’s Still Time

In 2002, a famous Democrat, Warren Buffett, said he thought that a nuclear attack on American soil was “a virtual certainty” and that mankind was hurtling “toward something equivalent to extinction”.

Another famous Democrat, former Senator Sam Nunn, Co-Chairman, Nuclear Threat Initiative of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in 2002 that “the gravest danger in the world today is the threat from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons”, and that “the likeliest use of these weapons is in terrorist hands.”

In 2003, Jessica Stern, lecturer in public policy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, said: “the prospect for terrorist groups to get access to nuclear and biological weapons is a very, very grave threat.”

In 2004, Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government (definitely not a conservative think tank), lamented:

The holes in our borders — from the thousands of cargo containers arriving in the port of Boston unopened, to the sailboats arriving on the Massachusetts coast from Canada without going through any customs procedures, to the automobiles, trucks and backpackers crossing the border from Canada to Maine or Vermont — allow 300 tons of cocaine to be smuggled into the United States each year. Because the radioactive core of a nuclear bomb easily could be shielded from radiation detectors and would fit in a container the size of a six-pack of beer, the chances of intercepting it en route are not good.

So it is not that the Democrats are unaware of the nuclear threat to the United States or that the primary danger comes from Muslim terrorists, nor that defeat in Iraq would embolden sworn enemies of the American people.

The fact is that Democrats would rather run the risk of losing New York City in an atomic blast than losing the 2008 election to the Republicans. Maybe not all Democrats, but enough to lose the war.

I guess that, like the cynical attitude of Muslim terrorists about blowing up their own people (“Allah will know his own”), Democrats may figure that fellow Democrats that turn into radioactive dust in a New York holocaust will have died in a good cause.

Now, with estimates of the probability of a nuclear attack on the US ranging from an optimistic 29% to Warren Buffett’s 100%, I’d settle for 50% as a reasonable guess of the likelihood of full scale atomic attack on New York City (the prime and most obvious terrorist target.)

So, in view of the goals of the Democratic Party that now controls Congress, the press, and the universities, here are some thoughts for careful investors:

• Get out of NYC real estate, while there’s still time;
• Switch financial assets to companies headquartered outside of Manhattan;
• Review the chances of the investment survival of your portfolio, in the event of a nuclear attack on the US.

PS: Don’t count on it being just a dirty bomb.