News coverage and commentary pertaining to the “Knockout Game” (wherein young black thugs punch non-black strangers in the head until they drop) is inexplicably divided between establishment media outlets and black leaders who have condemned the phenomenon, and those which refuse to believe there is a racial component to it or deny that it even exists.

The fact that Rev. Al Sharpton, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and other black leaders have condemned these attacks more than suggests that they acknowledge their racial origins; some sources have indicated that the Knockout Game is often referred to as “polar bear hunting,” referencing white victims. This does not appear to be enough for some in the press, though. This week, USA Today ran an article carrying the assertion that the “alleged trend” of this criminal practice is “a myth.”

I am inclined to think that the victims – those who survived – and the millions who have seen the reams of video evidence might beg to differ.

In any case, the stark contrast between the assessments of press organizations, activists and politicos who practically never diverge from their liberal orthodoxy is perplexing to say the least. Why, one would think that Al Sharpton would be excusing the Knockout Game participants’ actions, given their perpetual suffering under America’s grinding racism.

There is a similar divergence between institutions and icons of the left in their dispositions relative to the deal into which the administration and other Western leaders recently entered with the Islamic Republic of Iran. To elucidate: This is the deal that stinks to high heaven, was secretly brokered by Obama’s Iranian-born senior adviser and lifelong communist Valerie Jarrett, and which gives Iran far more latitude – and opportunity to deceive the West, as did North Korea – than the West received in concessions or assurances that the Islamist theocracy would not continue to develop nuclear weapons capability.

Now, while President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and a few press outlets are lauding this suicidal farce, such power players as New York Sen. Chuck Schumer have come out against the arrangement in a big way. Last week when the deal was announced, Schumer promised a bipartisan fight to keep sanctions against Iran in place, declaring that the U.S. should continue to pressure Iran “until Iran not only gives up all nuclear weapons, but all nuclear weapon capability.” This is quite uncharacteristic for Schumer, who generally appears to value his pedigree as a lefty far more than his pedigree as a Jew.

The practical concerns of experts on Islam stem not only from their belief that Iran is capable of using nuclear weapons against the U.S. and Israel, but that their religious zealotry practically demands it. In fact, the mullahs in Iran may actually want to see much of their nation transformed into an uninhabitable, smoldering, radioactive wasteland, because in keeping with Shiite prophecy, Muslims worldwide must suffer like never before as a prerequisite for their Twelfth Imam to return, save the faithful and destroy the enemies of Islam once and for all.

Finally, there is also an apparent “dialing down” in general of some of the anti-right rhetoric on the part of some in the liberal press, as well as the boilerplate mantras to which we are usually subjected. While the Washington Post attempted to implicate the tea party in JFK’s assassination last week, other establishment media outlets broke ranks and actually began to report widely on the harms already being done by Obamacare, as well as the president’s deceit on that subject and his plummeting poll numbers.

While I don’t necessarily think that anything coordinated is transpiring here, I know that those in political circles take their cues from others, usually ones higher up. This is how Obama has been able to so effectively influence race relations (for the worse) since he came to office.

I think that something entirely different may be occurring now, however.

Even the most radically left of Democratic leaders in our government and the president’s powerful political backers are probably not as keen on personal destruction as the mullahs of Iran. I think that many, if not most, may have come to realize that they are dealing with a dangerous psychopath, one who literally has the potential to far outdo the atrocities of a Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.

In failing to support ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and in failing to intercede decisively in Syria against Bashar Assad, and then getting into bed with Iran, Obama has profoundly alienated the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as destabilizing the entire Middle East. The many scandals hanging over the president may also have provided evidence to Democratic leaders of Obama’s manifest danger. Then, there are the less well-reported implications of missing ordnance, ammunition, high-tech tactical equipment and billions of dollars that appear to have gone down the jihadi sinkhole courtesy of Obama, and some of the most sinister machinations having to do with our military we’ve seen – or in this case, haven’t seen – in our history.

The grapevine suggests that some Democratic leaders, including heir apparent Hillary Clinton, may have determined that Obama is poised to do the Democratic Party far more harm than they ever expected – but then, they never expected that he might attempt to render such institutions obsolete.

While progressivism’s ultimate ascendancy was quite agreeable to Democratic leaders, touching off World War III or winding up in federal prison for conspiracy to treason (Obama’s) in the process was probably not on their bucket list.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.