Remaining Democratic government underground must also be drained from the swamp

Draining the swamp means cleaning out the remaining Democratic government underground too. President Donald John Trump is reported to be furious with his communications staff for steadily being outsmarted by well-timed and –placed leaks from Democratic operatives, suggesting collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government agents in preventing Hillary Clinton’s election, even surmising that this may have involved treasonous activities by Trump operatives.

With so far not an iota of evidence in support of such collusion, and completely ignoring that not only Hillary Clinton lost the election but the Democrats all over the country by failing to achieve expected gains in Congress and local state elections, he has reason to be upset that his government is unable to control the message. Less than 24 hours after giving before a joint session of House and Senate one of the best presidential speeches in U.S. history, he found himself once again on the defense under relentless leaks from former members of the Obama administration and government bureaucrats in various agencies who very obviously oppose the Trump agenda.

The Canary predicted in several prior blogs that Obama and his “army” of organized supporters would be a dangerous and divisive political force in strident attempts at delegitimizing the Trump presidency. Increasing evidence now has become public that during the last two weeks in office, the Obama administration carefully planned and executed a strategy of not only delegitimizing President Donald J. Trump but by claiming he won the presidency illegitimately by colluding with the Russian government in treasonous fashion.

These largely Obama-driven attacks on Trump and his administration, therefore, go far beyond just attempts at political deligitimization; they are meant to introduce the concept of treasonous behavior by a sitting president and, therefore, are attempts at criminalizing the arguments against his presidency with the potential goal of impeachment.

The deviousness of this campaign is unprecedented because it was initiated while, publicly, President Obama was extending a helping hand to the incoming Trump administration since, as he himself stated, despite political differences, he had been at the receiving end of such a helping hand from President Bush when he moved into the Oval Office.

18 U.S. Code §2381 defines treason as: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall …..”

This definition is of importance when considering the allegations swirling around. While it is important to reemphasize that, as of this writing, there is not an iota of evidence to support any collusion, indeed, not even that discussions regarding the subject took place between Trump’s campaign and Russian government officials, let us for a moment assume that there, indeed, have been discussion between these two parties, in which Trump operatives were made aware that the Russian government was in possession of e-mails generated by Hillary Clinton’s and the Democratic National Committee. Let us further assume that the Trump team even encouraged their publication. Would that have constituted treason?

Since President Putin’s Russia is, rightly, widely considered a hostile nation to the U.S., this is basically the argument made by Trump bashers. Moreover, opponents of Trump further argued during the election campaign (and still do) that the involved e-mails not only came from a hostile power but, in addition, were “stolen.” Their use in the campaign, therefore, would establish complicity with the thieves (i.e., hackers).

On both issues the Canary disagrees with the underlying logic of the anti-Trump crowd , and here is why: Though Russia under its current government has, indeed, to be considered a political and military adversary, promises of favorable treatments, disclosures of national secrets or any other potentially harmful acts to the security and interests of the U.S. in return for publication of these e-mails by the Russian government (or a potential third party agent, like WikiLeaks) could, in fact, potentially be considered treasonous. But in absence of any quid pro quo, disclosures of political fraud, undermining the democratic election process (like the interventions in the Democratic primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton and to the disadvantage of Bernie Sanders by Democratic National Leadership) are, especially before a crucially important presidential election, in the best interest of the electorate. Opposition research, routinely pursued by both major parties, frequently involves “stolen” data. To offer just one example, the Clinton campaign, for example, had no hesitation to use Trump’s stolen tax returns in the campaign.

Even repeated contacts with the Russian government, if it did not involve any quid pro quos, therefore, would appear not only perfectly permissible but are routinely taking place before elections all over the world because all countries are proactively assessing who may be the next government leader they would have to face.

The Russian government, of course, is also perfectly entitled to favor candidates in U.S. elections and, indeed, even to support them. It is the responsibility of U.S. politicians to make sure that any such “help” does not contradict U.S. law. The U.S, rather routinely, intervenes in national elections by supporting favorite candidates politically and even financially. A principal motivation why President Putin apparently opposed Hillary Clinton’s election has been her active support as Secretary of State for opposition groups to Putin during the last presidential election. The Obama administration also quite openly intervened in Israeli elections when sending financial support (using U.S. tax dollars) as well as expert staff help from Obama’s own election campaign to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s opposition in a blatant attempt to subvert Bibi’s reelection. The effort failed and, indeed, misfired once it became public but, if this is what the U.S. does to friends, imagine how much we, likely, meddle in elections of less friendly countries.

The furor expressed by Democrats and the media about Russian meddling in the recent U.S. presidential election, therefore, appears hypocritical and highly exaggerated.

Which returns the analysis to the recognition that there are significant differences between a presidential candidate, who may or may not assume the presidency in the future, and a sitting president, who already assumed all presidential powers. A candidate for the presidency, in principle, still only speaks for himself. Moreover, candidates are widely known to switch campaign positions on the journey from candidate to elected president. Representations and deeds of a sitting president, therefore, are, of much greater significance.

Exploring this thought further, it, therefore, would appear that the risk of treasonous acts is much higher for sitting presidents than for candidates for president, who still lack access to confidential government information and have no decision-making powers yet. In other words, candidate Trump had very little opportunity for being involved in treasonous situations with the Russians; Obama, however, as has been well documented, in highest government levels communication with Russia, meeting then Russian (temporary) President Dmitry Medvedev, in an open microphone gaffe on March 26, 2012, just before his reelection, revealed the message to Putin, “tell Vladimir that I’ll have more flexibility after the election.”

What Obama in those very few words communicated to the President of a hostile country could be, indeed, considered treasonous because he, basically, told him that, once the elections were over, he could give Russia concessions the American people, likely, would not approve of (because why would he, otherwise, wait with those concessions till after the election).

The irony is that, in contrast to current collusion rumors spread by the Obama propaganda machine, this event in 2012 really took place. It received minor media attention as a “gaffe,”- a more humorous than serious political occurrence; but, when closely examined, this event represented a truly astonishing statement from an American president in a one-on-one meeting with the president of a hostile country, and clearly evidence of collusions, – not only to the benefit of an election outcome but, in addition, behind the back of the American people.

For the Trump administration, it is high time to recognize that the Democratic Party establishment and many other well-financed interest groups are determined to prevent President Trump from completing his term and running again. In other words, the swamp Trump promised to drain is fighting back and, interestingly, is doing so with what psychologists call psychological projections, by accusing Trump of exactly the transgressions the Democrats have been guilty of over the last eight years. It is time for the Justice Department to take the gloves off, and open the public’s eyes to the corruption and abuse of state powers that pervaded the Obama administration for almost a decade. It, indeed, is a very deep swamp that needs to be drained!

 

  

 

We live in “crazy” times, – we better be careful!

 

Somehow, the whole world appears out of joint; crazy stuff seems to be happening in all spheres of life. Just think about the statistical likelihood that in the same one year the NBA finals would be won by a team three to one games behind, even if that team has LeBron James; that the Chicago Cubs (the Chicago Cubs!) after 108 years would win the World Series of Baseball, also being three to one games behind, and in overtime of game seven away from home; and that after being 28 points behind, the Patriots would rally to win the Superbowl in the first overtime game ever played.

That alone would be more than enough to declare 2016 the most “crazy” year in decades. Add to that BREXIT and, of course, the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the USA, and whatever other crazy things are happening all around the world, from ISIS medieval regressive behavior, North Korea’s obviously insane leadership, Pakistan’s poorly secured nuclear arsenal, over Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism all over the world, Russia’s and China’s newly expansive behavior, Erdogan’s dream of reversing Kamal Atatürk’s historic definition of Turkey as a Muslim but, nevertheless, secular state, the European Union on the verge of collapse, the Middle East, a tinder box, – ever-closer to explosion and then, returning to the U.S., as likely never before in history since the Civil War of 1861-1865, a radically divided nation, with both sides, seemingly, incapable of even talking to each other.

These are dangerous times, – likely the most dangerous since the 1930s, which were followed by the last big authoritarian world revolution that, ultimately, brought fascism and communism to power in large swaths of the world. World War II defeated fascism but, by doing so, led to the division of the world between Western democracies, led by the U.S., and Communist authoritarian dictatorships, led by the no-longer existing Soviet Union. It took almost half a century to defeat the socio-fascist concept of post-World War II Communism before the Soviet Union imploded and the Berlin Wall came down in November of 1989.

The disappearance of Communist eastern Europe led to the expansion of an, until recently, increasingly united and democratic Europe under the framework of the European Union. This expansion, however, in recent years increasingly ran out of steam, and the European Union is currently in imminent danger of collapse, as governments of Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and even France, are under increasing pressure from their citizenries to leave the Union, as the UK, with BREXIT, obviously already did.

Concomitantly, authoritarian forces, long believed morally disqualified from ever again finding access to power, are in almost all European countries battling for government positions on the left and right, recreating a potentially frightening world of increasing authoritarianism, instability and radical conflict between liberal and conservative view points, with on both political extremes, the most extreme setting the agenda.

Mostly unrecognized, this trend has been under way for a good number of years. One could argue It started in authoritarian Russia and China before reaching the West, including the U.S., with Putin pursuing much more radical domestic as well as foreign policy agendas after his return to the presidency, and China, by selecting Xi Jinping as president, demonstrating the most repressive domestic and most aggressive foreign policy since Mao Zedong. Even democratic Japan elected a relative radical conservative in prime minister in Shinzõ Abe, who only years earlier would have been considered unelectable because of many of his conservative view points.

Similarly, conservative extremists have been in power in Hungary since 2010, when Viktor Orbán was for the second time elected Prime Minister and in Poland when the Law and Justice Party in 2015 won an absolute majority in parliament. In Greece and Italy, on the other hand, leftist parties have swept to power, though strongly opposed by an at least equally radical right in the opposition. It, indeed, looks all like the 1930s all over again, where the extreme left and right were battling each other in most European nation states, only for ultimately allowing Fascism and Nazism to gain the upper hand.

One, indeed, could also argue that it all started with the Green revolution in Ukraine, followed by the Arab Spring, both national movements of discontent. Remarkable is, however, how this worldwide discontent has failed in leading to even minimally satisfying political solutions. Ukraine is anything but a functioning democracy and the Arab Spring has given rise to an unprecedented political, societal and humanitarian disaster, consuming almost all the Middle East, and resulting in the biggest wave of refuges since World War II.

As the election of Trump and BREXIT well demonstrated, the discontent with current governance is not only restricted to past Communist countries and the developed world. Indeed, discontent in the Western world may be even more intense. Observing the first three weeks of the Trump administration must be troubling for every U.S. citizen, whatever side she or he may be on. The break down in political decorum is unprecedented and further accentuated by a President, completely irreverent for longstanding presidential traditions.

Such unanimity of worldwide discontent has not been witnessed since the Great Depression (1929-1939) and, like then, must be viewed a pre-revolutionary. It is in times when national discontent reaches such levels, and political opponents are increasingly dehumanized, that revolutions tend to overthrow existing orders. To a degree, Trump’s election can, because of his advocacy of radical (in contrast to evolutionary) changes, be viewed as a revolutionary occurrence; but, because this change took place via the ballot box, it does not fulfill the definition of a revolution. If one views the evolving anarchy on university campuses and streets of major cities since Trump’s election, one, however, does see rather characteristic initial features of a truly revolutionary movements with no love for democratic order.

The Canary has warned before in these pages that we live in pre-revolutionary times. We, indeed, more than ever are convinced that former president Obama, likely as the only leading politician in the country, not only recognized this fact but, especially over the last 2 years of his presidency, used these circumstances as an opportunity to enhance the chances of a revolutionary overthrow of the country’s current order by instigating conflicts between races and reinvigorating class warfare, diminishing the government’s authority, whether on the nation’s borders, by diminishing the credibility of law enforcement, weakening the military or conducting an internationalistic rather than nationalistic foreign policy.

Trump’s election was the natural repeal of such revolutionary policies by a basically, overall, still mildly conservative country. His election, however, now mandates rapid changes to demonstrate to the American people that there, indeed, is a better option than Socialism for improving the quality of life for most citizens. The financial crisis of 2008 left even strong proponents of Capitalism with considerable doubts. Trump now must demonstrate with lightning speed that “honest” Capitalism, if not allowed to become Crony-Capitalism (as it, unfortunately, has become under prior Democratic as well as Republican administrations), is, still, the best economic system the world offers for those who wants personal freedom and ability to accumulate property.

If economic reforms will not succeed quickly, as we already have been witnessing, the left will become increasingly aggressive in promoting revolutionary steps toward an increasingly socialist market structure with full support by the Democratic Party establishment, which is frightened to death by the party’s base of supporters, mostly made up of Bernie Sanders supporters, the most radically left wing of the party.

Emigration reform, as important it is, should, therefore, receive less priority than tax reform, gaining control over medical costs and, finally, after almost 20 years of failure to do, supporting the middle class with adequate availability of well-paying jobs and reasonable social as well as medical security. In absence of rapid economic improvements, the radical left will start gaining strength, threatening the democratic as well as geographic stability of the Union. Like the current California Independence Movement, BRXIT also once started as a “crazy” fringe idea, and look where it brought us to! We are living in “crazy” times, where, if the Cubs can become baseball champions, almost everything can happen. We better be careful!

 

The post-Obama world

In business, it would be called “on spec” how Europe, already in 2009, shortly after being elected and ahead of any major foreign policy decisions, awarded President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. In doing so, “Europa got the kind of transnational American president it wanted,” The Wall Street Journal recently noted in a commentary. After almost eight years of Obama foreign policy, one, however, must wonder how much regret the selection committee may now experience about its decision.

It was President Obama, himself, who after his election made the point that “elections do have consequences.” While his comment was made about domestic politics, U.S. presidential elections, of course, always also have worldwide consequences. It now appears that the awarding of Nobel Peace Prizes “on spec” may also have (unforeseen) consequences.

In Obama, the country elected not only the least qualified and least informed president in foreign affairs in recent memory but, in addition, also an individual whose very limited knowledge of world history had been formed based on extremist anti-colonial and anti-imperialistic indoctrination from childhood. Under this worldview, the U.S. and most of the Western White World were the bad boys of history, while the mostly brown and black Third World, as victims of Capitalism, Colonialism and Imperialism, were the good guys.

Removing Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office, therefore, became a very symbolic first foreign policy act the new president took after moving into the White House, since Churchill, of course, represented British Colonialism at its best, which Obama’s father, Barak Obama, Sr., had so valiantly fought in his home country Kenya. That this world view would affect all of Obama’s foreign policy decisions, therefore, was not only predictable but, simply for psychological reasons, likely unavoidable. Add to this psychological predilection, the overconfident self-appreciation of a highly intelligent, yet severely egomaniacal personality, who in addition, just based on his rhetorical representations, is awarded the Peace Nobel Prize, and a historical constellation of personalities and circumstances becomes apparent, which explains why even Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a committed Liberal and strong former supporter, recently concluded that history will view Obama as one of the country’s worst presidents in executing foreign policy.

Being awarded the Nobel Prize so early in his presidency, and only based on expression of his obviously deviant political world views from those of his predecessors, undoubtedly, further strengthened Obama in his political convictions and, at least in part, explains his practical unprecedented audacity in making major foreign policy decisions in complete isolation and, often, against the expressed recommendations of his national security staff and military leadership. These decisions then often led to disaster, nowhere more obvious than in Iraq and Syria, with over half a million dead and millions of refugees in camps in neighboring countries and flooding Europe.

After his reelection, the need to obfuscate his ideological background further diminished. His national security team was increasingly made up of individuals with similar ideologies or with yes-man and women, who only further strengthened him in his political convictions. Consequences were the Iran deal, the normalization of relations with the Castro brothers’ Cuba, cordial and rather uncritical relationships with Socialist regimes in Venezuela and elsewhere in South America and persistent outreach to the Muslim world while, at best, demonstrating benign neglect of friendly Western countries but, often, indeed, hostility to traditionally friends, like the state of Israel.

How much the world has changed in eight years of Obama presidency is, indeed, almost impossible to comprehend. Whatever one may think about the preceding Bush years, Obama inherited a relative stable world order. In eight years of Obama foreign policy, the world order established after WWI appears completely uprooted, and the incoming Trump administration, likely faces the most complex and dangerous security situation in the world since the 1930s and start of WWII.

Europe

Like in the 1930s, we here at The Canary, once again, consider Europe to be the most dangerous flashpoint. With the European Union facing an existential crisis, Western Europe being overrun by Muslim migrants, and several central European countries facing Muslim majorities within just a few short decades, with Russia again pursuing an expansive foreign policy in efforts to reconstitute the geo-political power base of the old Soviet Union, Europe appears a powder cake, ready to explode.

No easy solutions are apparent. The most likely solution is contraction of the European Union back to a smaller but economically and politically more cohesive union of states, with other former member states in looser affiliated positions, and, potentially serving as buffer states between Europe and Russia. This core group of countries making up the United States of Europe (USE), in analogy to the U.S., must be able to function as one federally governed country of individual states, with its own border security and military, capable of defending itself against Russian expansionism without being dependent on the U.S. Despite BREXIT, we can see the United Kingdom as a cornerstone of such a USE, joined by Germany, Austria, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and, possibly, other countries.

President Trump’s foreign policy should be strongly supportive of such a USE, which could become a strong economic as well as military ally of the U.S. if relationships are properly managed.

The Middle East

This region of the world is characterized by the largest number of failed states. Moreover, since this is the center of the Muslim world, everything is linked to religion. Developments in Turkey, which by the West was considered the example how Muslim countries could evolve as liberal secular democracies, have, unfortunately been regressive, as Erdogan has been concentrating power in his hands, democratic freedoms are receding and a national policy of secularism is replaced by religious Islamism.

Though Sunnis, it appears increasingly likely that, out of a common fear that the Kurds in their countries may form a new continuous state of Kurdistan, Turkey will continue developing closer relationships with Shiite Iran. Though for the longest time a primary foe of Syria’s Assad, this coalition may, in the end, also include Syria and Iraq since these two countries also contain major Kurdish minority areas, and have close relationships with Iran. Finally, because of Iran’s influence, Lebanon can also be expected to join this coalition of states which, of course, will have strong political and military support from Russia

The rest of the Arab Sunni world, from Saudi Arabia, the Emirates to Egypt and the North African Muslim countries of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, appears less united than in the past. Disappointed by U.S. policy under President Obama, these countries in recent years have for the first time in decades again developed relationships with Russia. The whole region has remained a minefield of danger, at any given moment subject to a new political disruption.

This, of course, also includes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which since 1967, now for almost 50 years, includes Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory on the West Bank (in Biblical terms, Judea and Samaria) and of the Golan Heights from Syria. Though in view of recent events in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, this conflict has lost its centrality, it, nevertheless, cannot be overlooked because it no longer is only a conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. It for many years has become a proxy-war between Iran and Israel, with the Iranian goal being to encircle Israel from the north (Hezbollah in Lebanon) the west (Hezbollah and Iranian Quds forces from Syria and Hamas from the West Bank) and the south (Hamas in Gaza)

Publicly sworn to the destruction of the state of Israel (the only United Nations member state that expressed publicly its desire to destroy another U.N. member state), Israel, not surprisingly, therefore views Iran as an existential threat. In contrast to President Obama’s administration, the incoming Trump administration appears to share this opinion. Moreover, since Obama has, unopposed, ceded so much influence to Russia in the region, Israel has, strategically, become even more important to U.S. national interests as the only truly politically stable state which, in addition, also maintains the strongest and most sophisticated military in the region.

We, therefore, anticipate from the Trump administration a more forceful and open military and political affiliation with Israel, either as direct pact between the two countries or, if not opposed by other member states like Turkey, possibly even including the NATO alliance.

Russia

U.S. relations with Russia have reached the lowest nadir since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This is a remarkable development, considering the “reset” of relations Obama and Hillary Clinton had been striving for. Who, indeed, can forget the live microphone that allowed the world to hear President Obama telling, then Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, that he ”would have more leeway after his reelection in dealing with Russia.”

Things quite obviously did not work out as expected! As in so many other political hotspots around the world, the Obama administration viewed the Russian – American relationship through pink rather than realistic geopolitical glasses, completely misreading Putin’s intent on “making Russia great again.”

President Elect Trump’s approach to Russia will be interesting to watch. His selection of Rex Tillerson, who is known to have a personal friendship with Putin, as Secretary of State, can be a double-edged sword. It may not hurt to develop a better relationship with Putin; though “trust but verify” (ala Ronald Reagan) must be a guiding principle in dealing with Putin and his former KGB colleagues.

Here at The Canary, we are rather skeptical that one can do business with people who murder their opponents, deny the obvious (i.e., shooting down of airplanes, and use of their military in the invasion of Ukraine and other neighboring countries) and have turned their country back into a dictatorship; but who knows; maybe, Trump and Putin will succeed in reestablishing detente. It, certainly, would help in stabilizing a very unstable world.

Trump’s readiness to engage in another nuclear proliferation race with either Russia, China or whoever challenges the U.S., should be viewed as a positive statement. As the multiple diplomatic disasters of the Obama administration so well demonstrate, diplomacy can only be effective from a position of strength.

Asia

Considering how messy a world the Obama administration is leaving behind, we, despite the obvious danger a nuclear North Korea with intercontinental ballistic capabilities represents, consider Asia the least threatening part of the world to U.S. national security. China’s saber-rattling in the South China Sea is, of course, disturbing but, very obviously, is again to a large degree a product of foreign policy weakness of the Obama administration. President Elect Trump has been sending the correct messages to the Chinese leadership when taking the congratulatory phone call from Taiwan’s president.

The message is loud and clear; when the U.S. agreed to a one-China policy under Richard Nixon, there was also a clear understanding about mutual political behavior of both parties. Trump is absolutely correct in pointing out to the Chinese that agreements go both ways; If they want the U.S. to adhere to the agreement, then the U.S. can expect appropriate behavior from the Chinese in return. In other words, building artificial island in the South China Sea is not appropriate; refusing to take tough actions against a rogue North Korea is also unacceptable; stealing billions of dollars in intellectual property through hacking and other illegal measures every year is also unacceptable behavior for a nation that wishes to assume a leadership position in the world; and, finally, trade agreements between nations need to be fair.

We also trust that Trump’s comments about the potential nuclearizing of Japan and South Korea were not only empty threats. Those are, indeed, the logical next steps if China continues its aggressively expansive policy in the South China Sea and refuses to help in the denuclearization of North Korea.

Trump is also correct that China is economically more dependent on the U.S. than the U.S. is on China. As a senior government official once noted to The Canary, “China is not a country of 1.3 billion citizens, as is widely believed. It is more a country of ca. 300 million citizens (like the U.S.) with the additional burden of 1 billion peasants, the Chinese leadership must bring out of poverty to maintain the current government structure.”

Though there may be hiccups on the way, we, therefore, are confident that a usually highly rational Chinese leadership will in a Trump administration conclude that, considering the alternatives, it behooves them to step back from the kind of aggressive posturing we have seen over the last few years.

Pakistan

After Europe, Pakistan is, likely, the most dangerous spot on the globe, considering that this is a Muslim country with usually unstable governments. The good news is that the country just underwent a completely uneventful change in military command, with a highly regarded and militarily successful commander stepping down at the end of his term. While nothing unusual in Western democracies, this unchallenged change of command represented a big step forward for Pakistan, where the military is the real power behind the civilian government, and controls the nuclear hardware of the country.

The country’s nuclear arsenal is especially dangerous for the world because Pakistan is, likely, the most unstable nuclear power in the world. The risk that nuclear material falls into the hands of terrorists is, therefore, always substantial. Because of its financial problems, North Korea, of course, represents similar risks since it, in the past, has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to supply weapons and know how to whoever is willing to pay.

A new world order

Post WWI, the world established a new world order, based on two principal power centers, the Soviet Union and the U.S. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. remained the sole super power, and learned the hard way that this is not necessarily as good as it sounds, comes with considerable responsibilities and becomes politically as well as financially overbearing.

President Obama recognized this but decided on categorically incorrect solutions. Instead of trying to establish a new power balance between the strongest economic (U.S., China and European Union) and military powers (U.S., Russia and China), Obama decided to retreat and “lead from behind.” Instead of a rational new order, what evolved was then the chaos around the world we just described.

A new worldwide foreign policy strategy, which we believe Trump has in mind, must attempt to return the world from a unipolar, U.S.-driven to a multi-polar balanced world, in which the U.S., Russia and China (and, if not dissolving, the European Union or its successor), combined, assume responsibility for a balanced tri- or quatro-polar world. In other words, the only chance of cleaning up the mess left behind by eight years of Obama foreign policy, is a balanced “Kissinger world” and this, we believe here at The Canary, is why President Elect Trump has spent so much time with former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger.

A new revolutionary period for the world

2

What does ISIS have in common with worldwide increases in terrorist attacks, Black Lives Matter and the recent killing of cops? More than has been appreciated so far by political scientist, politicians and the media! They all point toward a breakdown of civility, respect for the law and trust in universally accepted democratic societal governance covenants.

Such periods are not unprecedented in history. They, indeed, are fairly repetitive phases, characteristic of prerevolutionary times. Consider, for example, what led to the creation of the Magna Carta, a document that dates back to 1215, and was signed by King John, a rather unpopular ruler of England at the beginning of the 13th century, not because he believed in the promises of the document but because political circumstances left him no other choice. Or take the French Revolution, which, as is widely acknowledged by historians, was the ultimate consequence of the French monarchy in an international struggle for hegemony of its empire in Europe outstripping the country’s financial resources, increasing social antagonism between the aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie (i.e., middle class), a highly ineffective ruler (Louis XVI) and increasing economic hardship, brought on by the agrarian crisis of 1788-1789. Similarly, The Bolshevik 1917 October revolution in Russia can be simply summarized in its causation by the revolution’s slogan, “Bread, Land and Peace,” thereby suggesting that Russia’s monarchy had provided none of the above and, therefore, very similar origins of this revolution to the French Revolution.

Following the worldwide devastation of World War II, mankind longed for stability and reconstruction. Stability was paradoxically further enhanced by the partition of the world into two principal regions of influence expressing opposing government ideologies, the Western world of Capitalism and the Eastern world of Communism, and the threat of mutual destruction in case of military conflict between these two blocks of nations. How important that balance was is now becoming increasingly apparent because history did not end, as at the time suggested by the prominent political scientist Francis Fukuyama (in his now infamous 1989 essay “The End of History” in the journal The National Interest and subsequent book “The End of History and the Last Man,” published in 1992) when the Soviet Union collapsed on December 25, 1991 and, with it, to a large degree the political ideology of Communism.

The U.S., the beacon of Capitalism, now the only remaining world power in a “flat world” (to quote Thomas L. Friedman), in the midst of a communication revolution (because of the Internet and more recently Social Media in general), and economic upheaval because of economic globalization, unfortunately, did not recognize the extent to which all of these changes would contribute to global instability. Like prior empires, starting from the Roman Empire, over the French Empire of Louis XVI, the Czarist Russian Empire but also the Soviet Communist Empire, instead of strengthening the nation’s economic health and, thereby, exerting influence, the U.S. empire economically overextended like all other empires before.

Most of the Western world, indeed, did the same, with ever increasing government debt, accrued by spending, which was not based on what represented economically the best investments and would achieve strongest returns on these investments for the country but on what buys most votes in future election campaigns. Since such deficit spending can go only so far, and last only so long, the Great Recession of 2008, in retrospect, does not surprise. What also cannot surprise, since the U.S. to a disproportional degree was responsible for the recession, is that both, U.S. policy and the economic and political concept of Capitalism, in large parts of the world, including among longstanding friendly nations, suddenly lost credibility.

And this is when Barak Hussein Obama was elected the 44th President of the U.S., an election, which in itself to an important degree has to be viewed as a revolutionary act. The reason is that at no earlier time in U.S. history would a candidate like Obama have had even the slightest chance of being elected. The Canary in a number of previous essays, based on his upbringing, offered a very detailed psychological analysis of this president. While we do not wish to be repetitive, it is important to note that even before his election it was obvious to anybody who only wanted to know that Obama’s history unquestionably defined him in his political ideology as an Afrocentric Marxist Socialist (to be differentiated from a European-style Social Democrat). Supported by very liberal major media organizations, the country, however, simply did not want to know! (Readers interested in more detail we refer to our earlier series of essays on President Obama.)

Obama’s governance, therefore, did not come as a surprise to The Canary; indeed, we predicted his “sympathy” for revolutionary movements around the world, his distancing from traditional friends of the U.S., like the U.K and especially Israel. We, however, also predicted his racial divisiveness within the U.S. at a time when most of the country assumed that his election for all practical purposes represented an end of most racial conflicts. Most importantly, we, however, pointed out that Obama in the deepest levels of his soul was a revolutionary who, as his ultimate political goal (from his days as a community organizer in Chicago on) was seeking a revolutionary overthrow of current power structures in this country.

We now have to acknowledge that he succeeded beyond even our predictions. His foreign policy of non-intervention in the Middle East unleashed the biggest refugee streams since World War II in Europe, thereby dividing local populations into radically opposing camps of left and right, like not seen since the 1930s, a devastating period for Europa, which ultimately lead to Hitler’s rise and World War II. Here in the U.S., America’s first Black president has, in a very underhanded and seemingly “cool” way, championed Afrocentric notions over and over again, with the result that population surveys consider race relations at the lowest point since the 1960s. In doing so, he has followed classical Afrocentric and Marxist dialectic by attacking law enforcement first because a revolution can only succeed if law enforcement is weakened first.

Helped by the incompetence of preceding administrations, the acquiescence of most of the media and even some of the Republican opposition, he, thus, has almost singlehandedly succeeded in bringing large swaths of the world into prerevolutionary times, like not seen in since the 1930. As a consequence, over half of all college students in this country currently believe that Capitalism is evil. Though he, himself, denied during his first election campaign being a “Socialist,” he has made it possible for Bernie Sanders, an openly declared Democratic Socialist to become a serious presidential contender. Who would ever have thought this possible prior to Obama’s two presidential terms, and who would ever have anticipated that the Democratic Party would move further to the left of most traditional European Social Democratic parties. But this is exactly what we have been witnessing over the last seven plus years, as so well demonstrated by the recent unprecedented illegal sit-in of the Democratic caucus in Congress.

All of this demonstrates the increasing break down of civility and deference to the law not only in Congress and politics but in the nation. As we have witnessed, it is only a small step from Black Lives Matters’ offensive verbiage during demonstrations and the targeted killing of law enforcement officers. It is probably an even smaller step between targeted cop killing and race riots or even worse.

The upcoming presidential election in November, therefore, matter more than anybody can, possibly, imagine. For everybody who favors evolutionary rather than revolutionary change and abhors the anarchy and violence of revolutions, casting a vote is, therefore, more important than probably in any election since the Large Depression before World War II. And then we can only pray that a new administration has the wisdom of pulling us back from the brink of revolution.

 

Western Islamophobia: Who Are We Kidding?

Islamophobia in America

There is so much talk these days about Islamophobia and anti-Muslim discrimination, yet worldwide statistics demonstrate convincingly that, despite all the atrocities committed by Muslim extremists, anti-Semitism is actually growing much faster than anti-Muslim fervor, especially in Europe.

This is a rather fascinating observation, considering that Jews in Europe never threatened the lives of others, never proselytized their religion and never wanted to change their host countries’ governances. Radical Islam openly threatens innocent lives on a daily basis and openly proclaims its goal of upending Western society and democratic government structures in favor of Islamic Sharia law. This is no longer only a desire of radical Islam; the Muslim Brotherhood, considered by much of the European Union and the Obama administration to represent moderate Islam, is openly committed to governance under Sharia.

Threats no longer come from just the radical sectors of Muslim countries. The same ideology expressed by longtime radicals is now expressed by recently-radicalized Muslims living in Western societies, where they (or their parents) had settled to supposedly improve their lives over what they had left behind. Now, they paradoxically attempt to convert their host nations to the same 16th century-style governance that they (or their parents) fled before receiving sanctuary in the West.

Yet despite increasing fear of radical Islam, statistics in European countries and the U.S. persistently record significantly more anti-Semitic than Islamophobic hate crimes. The reasons are unclear but, at least in Europe, growing Muslim populations, characterized by overt societal anti-Semitism, are widely suspected as a principal cause of this.

Dictionaries define the term “anti-Semitism” as discrimination, prejudice or hostility toward Jews for no other reason but their Jewish heritage. Islamophobia is similarly described as discrimination, prejudice and hostility being unjustly directed at Muslims.

Superficially, these definitions are almost identical. Closer examinations of their meanings, however, reveals very obvious differences: While anti-Semitism is directed at a peaceful religion and a well-integrated ethnic minority, to many that are full participants in their local societies, Islamophobia represents a different phenomena, and is a far more urgent concern.

First of all, it is didactically misleading since phobias are irrational, psycho-socially abnormal behavior patterns, and concerns about radical Islam are neither irrational nor psychologically abnormal behavior. The term, therefore, is factually incorrect because, in contrast to Judaism and all other major world religions, Islam is not only a religion but also a political movement with its own distinct anti-democratic political ideology.

If one were to discriminate or express prejudice and hostility toward Muslims because of their religion, such activity would be labeled as anti-Semitism. To publically express opposition to the political ideology of Islam, which is anti-democratic and contradictory to constitutions of practically all Western democracies, cannot, however, be labeled as discriminatory, prejudicial or hostile to a religion. The protection of a democratic constitution against undemocratic dictatorial forces is, indeed, the sworn duty of every citizen in Western democracies.

Nobody would be considered a religious bigot just because he opposes Communism, Fascism or other dictatorial ideological movements. Yet, criticism of Islamic political ideology immediately conjures the b-word, and raises the specter of Islamophobia. If the Muslim Brotherhood (widely present in most U.S. mosques, and representing most of the organized Muslim political power structure in the U.S.) were to restrict itself only to representation of Islam as a religion, it would be viewed as are representatives of any other major religion. But by actively propagating the introduction of Sharia in their many mosques, the Brotherhood becomes a political organization whose goals are incompatible with the U.S. constitution.

Paradoxically, it is exactly the political ideology of Islam that explains the strong association that the political left in Western democracies has forged with Muslims over the last few decades. On first impression, such a coalition would appear unlikely since the political left has, traditionally, been secular. Yet, despite the obvious religiosity of Islam, its religiously motivated anti-democratic tendencies, its radical discrimination of women and the ideological overlaps between Islam and the third-world, anti-imperialistic socialist ideology (including anti-colonialism, anti-Judeo-Christian morality and strong, third-world, underclass affinities with people of color) have established a strong emotional as well as a political alliance between the political left and Islam.

This coalition has been developing since the mid-1960s, and came together for the first time following the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War in 1967, in which Israel annihilated the combined armies of the Muslim Arab world and conquered all of the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria. Suddenly, the prior underdog, Israel, morphed in the eyes of the political left into a White European Colonial outpost in the Muslim Middle East, obviously overlooking the fact that almost half of Israel’s Jewish population were not of European descent but actually refugees from African and Muslim countries. Picking up the argument of the Muslim world, the political left concurred that the Crusaders had returned and conquered Jerusalem again: but that this time, the Crusaders were not Christians but ‘The Jews.’

History demonstrates that anti-Semitism was religious at times over the past centuries, and at other times economic; but it always was used as a political tool of governing classes, whether during the monarchies in England, Spain or Russia; the Catholic church in her fiefdoms in Italy; rightist political parties in Fin-de-Ciecle Vienna at the end of the 19th century; Nazism in Hitler’s Germany or Communism in Russia (and later in the Soviet Bloc under Stalin and his successors).
In other words, anti-Semitism has over centuries been used as a political tool by both the political right as well as the political left. We now appear to have entered another historical period of political anti-Semitism on the political left.

It wasn’t always like that: Israel was founded on socialist principles in 1948. Her political leaders were among the founders of the Socialist International: the social-democratic leadership forum of social democratic political parties that were established after WWII. But everything changed with the 1967 war. Though widely recognized as a war of defense for Israel, the subsequent occupation of Arab lands branded the country as a neo-colonialist power in the eyes of the left. Even today, almost 50 years later, it is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. But the majority of the Socialist International continues to view Israel with political distain. Through becoming a dominant military and economic power in the Middle East, Israel, like the U.S., is seen as a vestige of unmitigated capitalism and economic as well as military colonialism: little Satan and big Satan, as the Islamic Republic of Iran likes to call both countries.

Until the Obama administration came to power, following their Judeo-Christian believe systems, Israel and the U.S. shared most definitions of political rights and wrongs. The political left, however, believes that this view leads to neo-colonialism, and that it is reactionary in its rejection of the political relativism of the left.

This political relativism of the left allows and even encourages those considered to be suppressed by colonialism to revolt. Under the believe system of political relativism, the “oppressed” can practically do no wrong, and are even in the right when committing acts of terror, kidnappings, mass murder, abuses of civilian populations and initiating wars if it is in the name of freedom and social justice. So naturally, Hamas (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Hezbollah (a vassal of Iran) are considered moderate political organizations to the political left. It is almost surprising that the left has not embraced ISIS.

Threatened since its creation by the United Nations in 1948 with extinction, the country of Israel, despite its founder’s socialist traditions, could not afford to go along with the moral relativism of the political left, which increasingly sided with those who openly sought her destruction. The country, along with over 200 member states of the United Nations, is the only that is openly threatened with extinction by other member states (Iran and others). Yet no resolution ever condemned such threats. Indeed, over 90 percent of resolutions of condemnation in the various bodies of the United Nations are directed at Israel every year. Though it is the only parliamentary democracy in the Middle East, Israel cannot even get nominated as a member of the United Nations’ Human Rights Commission. In the meantime, human rights pariahs like Iran, Libya and Saudi Arabia are routinely elected.

So, the history of recurrent political anti-Semitism appears to repeat itself: the world needs a bogeyman, and nobody is better suited for this role than ’The Jew,’ – this time in the form of the Jewish state of Israel, which, objectively, is one of the world’s great national success stories.

Even the U.S. political system is proof of the connection between anti-Israel polemics and unadulterated anti-Semitism. One just has to listen to some of the sermons of President Obama’s longtime pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and of his ideological twin, the Nation of Islam’s Minister Louis Farrakhan. Both are well-known Afro-centric racists and anti-Semites who discovered their Jewish bogeyman!

Like many politicians of the political left in Europe before them, members of President Obama’s foreign relations team have expressed the opinion that the creation of Israel was a political mistake. This is not a new opinion in this country’s foreign policy establishment. Indeed, when President Truman ordered a United Nations vote in favor of Israel’s creation in 1948, he overruled his own Secretary of State. Such opinions voiced by the current administration, however, deserve attention, since the Obama administration’s policy toward Israel has been clearly influenced by the administration’s leftish ideology. So it should not surprise that we have witnessed a clear turn away from the traditional support of Israel, and more alignment with antagonistic policies toward Israel from the European Union.

Economic and academic boycott movements against Israel started in the UK and Scandinavian countries (mostly Norway and Sweden). They were initiated by leftish fringe groups but appropriated over time by social democratic politicians all over Europe, and became official policy of some social democratic political parties and governments led by those parties in Sweden and Norway. Boycott movement have also crossed the Atlantic and are now present on most college campuses in the U.S., once again demonstrating the common cause of the political left fringe and Muslim groups.

Outright anti-Israel stances are still rare in U.S. politics but, as noted before, the U.S.–Israel relationship has changed decisively under President Obama. Moreover, it was surprising to see how much political support Israel has lost from the left in Congress, when even prominent Jewish politicians in the Democratic Party publically supported President Obama’s Iran deal, which was considered an existential threat to Israel. It was also interesting to note that, desperate to secure votes to prevent the override of a potential Obama veto, the administration did not hesitate to subtly raise concerns about Jewish dual loyalty, an argument that has fed anti-Semitic prosecutions of Jews for centuries.

Though he describes himself as “Israel’s best friend in the White House,” he is a politician brought up on the extreme Marxist left, with a Muslim Marxist father dedicated to fighting British Colonialism (for details see The Canary’s earlier biographical series on President Obama). Obama’s psychological affinities to leftist ideologies render him sympathetic to the European Socialist view on Israel. Socialist ideology has dominated his presidency from the beginning, whether in domestic or foreign policy. In one of his first acts as President, he actually removed Winston Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office because he did not, unlike most Americans, see him as a WWII hero but as the villain of British colonialism between the two World Wars. Considering Obama’s foreign policy toward Israel, his very public support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood offshoots in the U.S., is no wonder that President Obama’s relationship to ‘The Jews’ has been questioned. Some media outlets have publically questioned whether President Obama should be considered anti-Semitic.

Once his White House tapes became public, President Richard R. Nixon did not mince words in his conversations with Kissinger, which could be viewed as anti-Semitic. But he likely saved Israel after the surprise attack by Egyptian and Syrian armies when he expedited weapon deliveries during the Yom Kippur War. President Lyndon B. Johnson was also known to have uttered anti-Semitic remarks at times. But a few such remarks do not yet make an anti-Semite.

While nobody reported President Obama to have made an anti-Semitic remark, his intimate 20-year relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a flaming anti-Semite with violently anti-Israeli view points, suggests that future presidential historians will have to pay close attention to this question when assessing Obama’s presidency. Such a close assessments of the administration’s attitude toward Islam will not be required because no other population, African Americans included, has received as much positive attention from the Obama Administration. But who would have expected anything else from the most socialist administration in decades?

The World is a Mess, and Nobody Seems to Care

CANARY IN THE MINE BLOG - The world is a mess and nobody seems to care

The world is a mess, and getting worse every day. Truly earthshattering events will reverberate for decades to come. Yet, too busy with its self-perpetuation, our political class doesn’t appear to be moved.

The fish always stinks from the head, and for almost seven years, the country’s head has been President Obama. When observing his foreign policy, one has to wonder whether this man ever took a 20th Century history class. Does he know anything about the world between WWI and WWII? Has he ever heard about the Weimar Republic, the Spanish Civil War, the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler or of course, WWII and the Cold War that followed?

Looking at what he appears to prioritize in his presidency, one has to wonder. Aside from playing golf, attending fundraisers and sticking his finger in Republicans’ eyes (not necessarily in that order), he clearly engages on domestic issues such as income inequality, immigrants’ rights and the environment. He becomes particularly emotional when raising the issue of racism and discussing gun control (though, interestingly, has not addressed the extraordinarily high black-on-black murder rate in his home town of Chicago).

Yet, the primary responsibility of government, the national security of the nation, never seems to be of particular interest or to elicit emotions from this president. Defense and State, traditionally considered the two most important government departments, appear to be mere afterthoughts, frequently characterized by delays in decision-making or outright inaction. Not surprising, he stumbles from one foreign policy disaster to the next, yet does not appear to care.

Obama and his national security team’s inability to interpret recent history and draw appropriate conclusions is staggering.

But shouldn’t our government be able to recognize the similarities between now and the 1930s, when downtrodden Germany found a dynamic, devilish new leader in Hitler, who promised reconstitution of the greatness of the German Reich, beaten down by the Versailles Agreement after WWI, and socially eviscerated by the Great Depression.

Now it is Putin’s Russian Federation, like Hitler’s German Reich in the 1930s a powerful military machine that feels denigrated by the rest of the world, and is determined to proof her political relevance. Like Hitler’s Germany, the political insanity starts with unopposed expansion of the motherland with military force (sic. Crimea and the Ukraine) testing one’s military and projecting military capabilities by initiating a proxy war with “the other side” (sic. Syria).

The many analogies are truly eerie: Hitler organized the 1936 summer Olympics in Berlin as a demonstration of Germany’s re-ascendance. In 1936 the Spanish Civil War started as a proxy-war between Europe’s Fascist right and democratic left. By siding with the Fascist Franco regime, Hitler used Spain’s civil war as a testing ground for his military. By 1938, Austria was annexed into The Reich, by early 1939 the Czech Sudetenland was conquered and shortly thereafter Poland was attacked, which started WWII.

Russia’s 2014 winter Olympics in Sochi were not only called Putin’s Olympics but were to demonstrate Russia’s re-ascendance as a political, military and economic power in the world. Only weeks later, Russian troops occupied the Crimea and invaded the eastern parts of the Ukraine. Over the last few weeks, Russian military forces have become actively involved in the Syrian civil war and, certainly not on our side. Senior U.S. military strategists have started to call Putin’s intervention in Syria a proxy-war against the U.S., while the Russian military leadership openly acknowledged to the international press that “the Syrian intervention represented a good opportunity to test Russia’s weapon systems.”

And then there is the famous Chamberlain episode, when the British Chancellor triumphantly returned to London after meeting with Hitler, claiming to “have achieved permanent peace in Europe” by ceding to Hitler the Sudetenland. Nobody in those days listened to Winston Churchill, who strongly opposed the agreement, and correctly foresaw its consequences.

The contemporary analogy is Obama’s infamous Iran deal, which not only released 250 billion U.S. dollars to Iran, but also ended all economic sanctions. Like Chamberlain from Hitler, Obama received nothing in return for his graciousness from the Iranians. Indeed, within days it became apparent that Russia (one of the countries that negotiated the Iran deal) and Iran, behind Obama’s back, had formed a political and military alliance with Iraq and the Syrian government against the limited U.S. efforts in Syria (it was announced days after Obama met with Putin at the U.N.).

There, however, is one big difference between Chamberlain’s and Obama’s deals: Chamberlain had the overwhelming support of Parliament and the British people when he signed his now infamous agreement with Hitler. In contrast, two-thirds of the American public and clear majorities in both houses of Congress opposed Obama’s Iran deal. Despite obvious lack of public support, Obama concluded the agreement, likely the most consequential national security agreement reached between the U.S. and a hostile nation since WWII.

Even the economy mimics circumstances in 1930 to some degree: While we are fortunate to have avoided a second worldwide depression in 2008, the International Monetary Fund just warned of yet another pending worldwide recession. One wonders how well the world would withstand a second devastating recession after the anemic recovery in history from the last one. With interest rates in most of the developed world already at or close to zero, federal reserves have few options left to stimulate collapsing markets and economies.

Seven years of Obama foreign policy have brought the world close to a political and military abyss. Russia’s Putin understood President Obama’s message loud and clear when, while running for his second term, he whispered into Dimitri Medvedev’s ear that “after his reelection he would be able to be more flexible.”

He has indeed become more flexible vis-à-vis the newly expanding Russia but also vis-à-vis Teheran, the leading terrorist government in the world, as well as toward Cuba, which still incarcerates more political prisoners than even much larger totalitarian countries. Indeed, this increased flexibility is being offered to practically every government that expresses hostility toward the U.S., while Obama clearly distances himself from longtime allies like Egypt and Israel.

The Canary predicted Obama’s policies before his reelection because they match his ideological geopolitical world view (Obama’s foreign and security policies are not based on history lessons but on an internationalist, Marxist, third-world ideology. I say this because it is almost incomprehensible to maintain a Marxist ideology after studying 20th century history. As we previously noted, Obama grew up surrounded by proponents of a multi-centric, anti-colonialist world in which the U.S. is no longer the dominant nation but one among many. It is defanged in its abilities and no longer able to impose her will upon the rest of the world.

What happens out there in the world, therefore, does not matter much to Obama; the weaker the U.S. becomes strategically and militarily the better, because this means it is less likely that the U.S. will be strong enough to intervene in other parts of the world militarily. Like Ronald Reagan became a highly consequential president by rebuilding America’s military might after a disastrous Carter presidency, Obama is striving to become a consequential president for having eliminated the country’s overwhelming might, which made it the only “superpower” in the world.

No longer the world’s lone “superpower,” Obama’s second policy goal is to make the country turn inwards toward all domestic problems that make his heart beat faster. Considering these ideology-driven priorities, his disinterest in foreign policy and the dismantling of U.S. military strength during his two administrations should not surprise. The 250,000 Syrians who have perished, and millions of refugees now flooding Western Europe with irrevocable consequences for decades to come, are hardly worth his attention, unless, of course, they come to the U.S. as potential political supporters of future Democratic administrations.

One would think that this level of ideological blindness would be met by a thoughtful Republican strategy. But Republican policy makers are preoccupied with trying to launch successful primary campaigns for 2016, a suggestion that is laughable at best. When it appeared that things could not get any more bizarre, the Republican leader of the House resigned and his second-in-command revealed himself as an even less competent party spokesman. He did not even make it to the succession vote for the Speaker position, although only days earlier, it was projected that he would easily win this vote.

And then there is the Democratic political farce surrounding the “inevitable Hillary Clinton,” increasingly unpopular with the public, and outright hated by the Obamas and Valerie Jarret (Obama’s female Rasputin). Anybody who still believes that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate in 2016 does not understand the modus operandi of the current White House.

The Canary explained this modus operandi over a year ago, when we asked where General David Petraeus had disappeared to at a time when this country was in desperate need of his tactical military genius. Shortly before our piece appeared, the FBI had initiated an investigation against him, and he was forced to resign as CIA Chief.

Does that sound familiar?

The ongoing Hillary investigation by the FBI will allegedly be completed by the end of the year. Isn’t it amazing how quickly the FBI can and will get an investigation completed when it suits a good political purpose, like preventing Hillary from ever setting foot into the White House (compare this to the IRS investigation, for which not one victim was interviewed)?

Yes, this is how much the Obamas and Jarret hate the Clintons; Like Petraeus before her, Hillary will receive a settlement offer from Justice that she will not be able to refuse. The offer will be to retire from politics prior to the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in early February in exchange for staying away from the White House or she will be formally indicted and, likely, go to jail. It’s not hard to guess which option she will choose. And since Vice President Biden already knows that this settlement is in the works, expect his announcement that he will join the campaign for the presidency soon.

With all of this going on in Washington, who can be surprised that our political elite doesn’t seem to care that the world around us is crumbling. It’s the 1930s all over again, and more chaos is on the way, with no political leadership visible anywhere in the Western world to resist the forceful spread of authoritarianism by the Russian Federation, China, Iran and other powers hostile to the U.S. and Western democratic values.

Obama is succeeding in becoming a very consequential U.S. president, with unfortunate consequences for the next generations. And he still has another 14 months to go.

God help us!

We Were Right: Obama Will Do Everything to Destroy Israel

Canary in the Mine: Obama 1

“We predicted outright confrontation between Obama and the Jewish state for the time period after the November elections in our pre-election profile series on Obama. We then also noted the considerable influence the Rev. Wright exerted on Obama’s worldview. However, even we underestimated the degree of antagonism Obama would publicly demonstrate against Israel and the country’s leadership. He very obviously cannot help himself.”

Continue Reading

Does Obama Want to be a Martyr in His War Against the West?

Canary in the mine: Obama martyr

Martyrdom is the selfless commitment to a cause, leading to one’s own demise. It has remained an essential concept in practically all religions. For example, in recent weeks, Catholic authorities repeatedly referred to the “martyrdom” of Christians in the Middle East at the hands of ISIS; and Islam, more than any other religion, still preaches the glory of martyrdom in expectation of a better afterworld.

Continue Reading

Israel in Crisis: Will the United States Continue to Support Netanyahu?

Canary in the Mine: Netanyahu

The Democratic Party started to shift away from supporting Israel during the 2012 Democratic Convention, when Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa faced fierce resistance from the floor in attempting to reinsert the longstanding recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel into the official Party Platform.

Continue Reading

How Israel Became the Enemy

Canary in the Mine: Netanyahu

In our last post, we discussed how Jews had helped found the European socialist movement to then become excommunicated by that very movement.

After Israel’s overwhelming military victory against the united Arab world in the 1967 Six-Day War, the political left immediately started questioning the continuous inclusion of Jews and their nation-state, Israel, in the international socialistic brotherhood. Indeed, the left increasingly rejected the concept of the Jewish “victim,” and replaced him with a brand-new victim – the “Palestinian”-Arab. This concept had never even existed before 1967.

Continue Reading