A new revolutionary period for the world

Posted on by in Blog, Foreign Policy, Psychology of Obama and tagged , , , , , , , , , , .
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.

 

Are we in the midst of the biggest election charade in U.S. history?

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections and tagged , , , , , , , , .
The Canary - election charade 2

Down to four candidates, and with “the Donald” seeming increasingly inevitable as the Republican candidate in the November election, the country is consumed by the Republican race toward the nomination. While the performance of good old Bernie on the Democratic side to a degree is not less surprising than Trump’s among Republicans, Bernie creates much less commotion within party, media and the public because Hillary is, still, considered the shoe-in favorite to be the Democrat Party’s nominee for president in the fall.

Media, political pundits and the Republican “establishment” are fixated on the potential implications of a Trump nomination, while comparatively little attention is being paid to the Democratic race. Donald Trump commented a few times that Hillary should not be allowed to run because of her legal server problems; some Republican pundits on the FOX news channel have made similar comments, suggesting she may be indicted by the Justice Department; but the general consensus has been that President Obama’s Justice Department will “protect” Hillary, and that, like in past scandals, she once again will get away unscathed.

But here is a rumor, interestingly circulating in Democratic rather than Republican circles, which, if true, would suggest that we are in the midst of the most profound election charade in U.S. history, – all managed out of the White House.

It goes like this: The Obamas really hate the Clintons, and the last person Barack and Michelle would like to see in succession is Hillary. Senior White House Advisor and best Obama friend Valerie Jarret despises Hillary and, allegedly, leads the evolving cabal, after failing in her earlier attempts to recruit Vice President Biden to run in the primaries.

President Obama is, however, committed to supporting Hillary in her election bid, – a commitment he made to Bill Clinton when he desperately needed Bill’s support in his bid for reelection. Short of declaring open war on the Clintons, such a commitment is not rescindable. Obama’s hand, therefore, are tide unless, of course, unforeseen circumstances, involving interests of national importance arise.

A scenario, involving national interests is indeed what the White House is allegedly working toward, and it involves the following: As is widely expected, and despite stronger resistance from Bernie Sanders than had been anticipated, Hillary will become the Democrat Party’s nominee at the July 2016 convention in Philadelphia. Shortly after her crowning there, however, will be leaks to the media suggesting that the Justice Department is preparing indictments against Hillary on multiple grounds involving her private server but also conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation. While these leaks will initially be denied by government sources, other leaks will confirm that a grand jury has indeed been seated for months.

Behind the scenes a similar sequence of events will take place, just as The Canary described with the Petraous case in October 2014. The Justice Department and White House will offer Hillary a deal that she will not be able to refuse: she will announce her resignation as the Democrat Party candidate for the 2016 presidential election, considering “all the swirling rumors” and “in the best interest of party and nation,” at which point President Obama, “in recognition of her enormous sacrifice for party and country” will offer her an all-encompassing pardon, as Ford granted to Nixon. An indictment under this scenario will never be formally announced. Public announcement of an indictment, of course, would make it impossible for Hillary to continue a campaign for the presidency, and would, in addition, expose her to serious legal jeopardies.

What makes this alleged scenario so believable is its timing. It has to play itself out after Hillary wins the nomination because, once delegates have voted and elected a nominee, should another election be required, they are free to vote their conscience. This, of course, gives the White House the opportunity to put forward the “most suitable” candidate, Vice President Biden.

This is, however, not where the conspiracy ends: The goal of the White House is, of course, to extend the Obama legacy for as long as possible. Because of his age, Biden is, at best, only a one-term presidential candidate. The choice of vice-presidential running mate, therefore, is of great importance, and here is where this alleged charade assumes real importance because the name we hear is, believe it or not, Michelle Obama.

Michelle as running mate would have significant electoral advantages in November since she would unquestionably solidify the old Obama coalition for the 2016 race more than any other vice presidential candidate. In addition, her nomination would be the ultimate slight to the Clintons since it would put Michelle into strong contention of becoming the first female U.S. president, a goal Hillary has been striving for for decades.

We hear that Michelle is allegedly still hesitant, and wants Valerie Jarret to be the running mate. If elected as vice president and later president, either would extend the Obama legacy by up to 12 years. Barack Hussein Obama would be viewed as one of the most influential U.S. presidents in history.

Western Islamophobia: Who Are We Kidding?

Posted on by in Blog, Foreign Policy, Israel and tagged , , , , , , , .
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?

Why Trump Could (and Maybe Should) Be President

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections and tagged , , , , , , .
canary in the mine blog donald trump president of united states of america

Everybody can agree that Donald Trump’s persistent lead in the Republican presidential race creates potential conflicts within Republican Party ranks. Trump has shown himself to be rhetorically divisive. He sources his popularity to some degree from being divisive; yet, in our opinion, the Republican Party actually has a potential presidential candidate in Trump for the first time since Ronald Reagan’s successful initial presidential campaign, because he can make significant inroads into core Democratic constituencies.

The Republican establishment is increasingly horrified by the fact that Trump could really become the Party’s nominee. The same competing candidates who attacked him for threatening a third party bid during earlier stages of the campaign are now are suggesting that they may not support him should he become the duly elected Republican presidential candidate. Due to increasingly frantic leaks from the establishment, the idea that their convention may be deadlocked serves as reassurance and threat to those who believe that Trump would have little chance of becoming the Republican candidate in a back-room-brokered convention managed by the political establishment of the Party.

Such a brokered convention last occurred on the Republican side in 1948 when the Party elected Thomas Dewey, who failed to defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt in his fourth election cycle.

Too smart and too sophisticated a tactician, Trump immediately countered the threat of the party’s establishment, threatening to go rogue and run a third-party candidacy, which would doom not only the Republican presidential candidate but also Republican Senate and House majorities.

This leaves few options for the Republican Party establishment, because Trump would view any organized opposition against him as a cause-celebre to go to war. He could do that at almost no cost because more than enough of his loyal followers would vote third party to assure a disastrous Republican election experience in 2016.

If we know that, so does The Donald and so does the Republican establishment. Anybody who does not see Donald Trump as the principal Republican candidate to beat should return to reality.

Which brings us back to the original purpose of this column, which was to explain why Donald Trump could actually rebuild a dominant Republican majority in the country in 2016: one that has not been seen since the days of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan’s electoral success was built on his unique ability (as a former Democrat and union president) to attract a core Democratic constituency, – the so-called “Reagan Democrats.” Those were mostly white, lower-middle class, blue-color workers without college education who had never voted for a Republican candidate (and have not since).

Trump appears to attract the same constituency: maybe more so than Reagan. There are good reasons for that, considering the disastrous economic effects of the Obama years on blue color workers and the middle class in general. Add to this Obama’s divisive race policy and disastrous foreign and security policy and one observes a huge block of traditional Democratic voters not only staying home, but also switching allegiance for the first time since 1981, when the choice was between reelecting Carter or electing Reagan.

But Trump’s and the Republicans’ opportunity looms even larger than that and, once again, Trump’s actions suggest that he is astutely aware of it: for the first time in decades, a significant block of African American voters is up for grasp by a smart Republican candidate, and nobody is rhetorically better suited to go after that vote on the Republican side than The Donald.

Like white, blue collar America, Black America experienced a rather disastrous times during the Obama years. Paradoxically, the county’s first Black president’s policies lead to the most significant economic deterioration within the American Black community in decades, with poverty reaching a new high, incomes declining, youth unemployment at record highs and race relationships the worst since the 60s. The Black community, which, based on their loyalties to the first Black U.S. president, voted almost 100 percent Democratic in the last two presidential elections, will not show the same allegiance to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat candidate in 2016.

Increasingly, even liberal voices from amidst the African American community are reaching the conclusion that traditional liberal policies have not served their communities well.

And who can blame them?

If one looks around the country, cities under decade-long, one-party Democrat rule like Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore, African American communities are doing the worst. It is in those cities where most black youth are murdered every day, where schools are employment factories for union members but don’t offer even minimal education to children and the economic future of the youth is, therefore, the bleakest.

But the camel’s back was probably broken for the African American community with the apparent murder of the African American teenager Laquan McDonald by a white police officer in Chicago. It was not the murder itself that did it (after all, Chicago is the murder capital of the country for black youth), but the very obvious cover up by the decades-old Democratic administration of the city, which is run by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff at the White House. Emanuel’s administration tried to silence McDonald’s family with a payoff of $5 million and attempted to hide an evidentiary video from the public for over a year out of fear that its disclosure could derail Emanuel’s reelection as major (does that sound like Benghazi deceptions before Obama’s reelection?).

The blatancy of this cover up demonstrated the decades-long abuse of Black America by the Democratic political establishment, which was never able to advance the community’s economic and social interests.

Mayor Emanuel’s administration’s behavior suddenly demonstrated to the world how little Democrats really cared about the African American experience. Just like classical Marxism, allegedly representing the best interests of the proletariat, they only used the proletariat to achieve ideological goals under a highly educated and privileged political elite. The liberal Democratic establishment always viewed African Americans as political fodder in their power struggles with the political right, guaranteeing them an almost unanimous voting block during election seasons.

By recently meeting with a group of African American ministers in New York City, Donald Trump demonstrated that he understands the political uproar that is currently ripping through traditional political relationships in Black communities all over the nation. Witnessing Black demonstrators in Chicago demanding the resignation of Obama’s prior Chief of Staff as mayor of Chicago is telling. Like everybody else, looking for a better future under true leadership, the African American community is ripe for the political picking by a Republican candidate who is convincing in persuading them that she/he offers new opportunities that will finally improve Black lives in America.

No Republican candidate is better suited to deliver this message than Donald Trump.

As we already noted in our last posting, barring completely self-destructive behavior by Trump or suicidal actions by the Republican establishment, it may be time to consider a Trump presidency a reasonable likelihood. As we also indirectly noted in our last posting, he would be well-advised to choose a female running mate. Considering Trump’s relative lack of foreign policy experience, we are increasingly betting on a Trump/Fiorina ticket. America could do worse than that!

The coming political revolution of 2016: Why the country is so fed up with politicians

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics and tagged , , , , , .
1

There is an unusual unanimity in the media and among political pundits about the level of distrust with which the country has come to view the political class. It appears on the verge of outright “disgust,” threatening in an almost revolutionary way to obliterate a whole generation of professional politicians among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Establishment politicians from both parties still hope that interruptions and disturbances generating from a-political outsiders will collapse. We think they will be disappointed, especially on the Republican side, where discontent with politicians (even in their own party) is even more pronounced than among Democrats.

And now, after the government, Federal Reserve, Wall Street and media forecast slow but consistent economic expansion into 2016, should the Canary’s prediction of further economic weakness (The Canary predicted a recession in late 2015 to early 2016) coupled with disappointing Holiday Season sales, become reality, the public’s trust in all of those traditional societal pillars will, undoubtedly, further erode.

The country’s system of governance is now increasingly perceived as incompetent, corrupt or both, with widespread consensus that nobody looks out for the best interests of the nation, its citizens and future generations anymore. It doesn’t matter whether the Veterans Administration (VA) represents incompetence, corruption or both. What matters is that, even under a new administration, the medical care our veterans receive continues to deteriorate.

The VA is, indeed, a good example for how much governance has deteriorated. It was established in 1930 by Congress during the Hoover administration and, since, has become the largest integrated health care system in the U.S. with a whopping 152 medical centers. What makes this explosive growth of the VA system even more remarkable is that it occurred despite VA’s persistent failure to offer comparable levels of health care to other non-government health care systems. The medical community has considered the VA system a second-class health care system for decades.

Lesson I: Growth of government institutions is independent of performance. Once government services become the subject of criticism, every bureaucracy’s self-preservation mechanisms are activated which, if necessary, will include deception of public and Congress. The VA scandal demonstrates this, as senior administrators were caught falsifying appointment schedules to cover up the VA’s failure to offer veterans timely medical appointments.

Lesson II: Government institutions will lie and cheat to self-preserve. A new VA administrator was appointed, but recent media reports suggest that despite Congress granting it a considerable budget expansion, waiting periods for medical appointments are longer than ever.

Lesson III: Government institutions are incapable of self-correcting. While some senior administrators who falsified records were “allowed” to retire, none was indicted and none ended up in jail.

Lesson IV: As we witnessed in the IRS scandal for which nobody went to jail, the political class protects its own. Whether Democrat or Republican, administrations understand that executions of their programs are dependent on the good will of the bureaucracy. Prosecution of senior bureaucrats, therefore, is never advisable.

One would expect government to at least learn from its failures, but lessons learned at the VA did not lead to congressional reorganization of the VA. In good Washington fashion, more money was thrown at the problem by both parties, without any attempts at reengineering a failing government agency. Under Obamacare, the country doubled and tripled down on this failure by creating an even larger VA on steroids. It barely took two years to see subsidized insurance exchanges go bankrupt and insurance premiums rise far beyond inflation rates all over the cuontry. Even earlier supporters of Obamacare have second thoughts.

Lesson V: The political class does not learn from past mistakes because ideological believe systems and political expediency always trump empirical conclusions. In pursuit of empirically unproven programs, and in attempts to get elected (or reelected over and over), politicians from both parties are spending the country into oblivion. For the first time in the country’s history our generation is on the verge of leaving our children and grandchildren a country financially worse off than the one we inherited from our parents.

Corruption in the current political system is also well-demonstrated by the unbecoming spectacle of politicians after retirement or in between government positions being paid absurdly excessive speaker honoraria by commercial and political (often foreign) interests. Since no speech ever is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, influence peddling, the real motivation behind these payments is too obvious. Nothing demonstrates this better than the donations and speaker honoraria received by the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hillary’s personal worldwide kingdom of political corruption.

It allowed them to go from “being broke” a little over a decade ago when leaving the presidency (to quote Hillary), to controlling hundreds of millions of dollars of “donated” assets, which allows them (as a not-for-profit at tax payer expense) to finance their own and their daughter’s opulent life style and maintain a publically-financed political machine of political employees, salaried by the foundation.

Despite Hillary’s denials in her current election cycle, the Clintons are also the best practitioners of crony capitalism. Nobody has done more for the big Wall Street firms than the country’s leading political couple, and few have argued as successfully for the bailouts Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants received during the 2008 financial crisis.

Interestingly, just a few days ago, The Wall Street Journal reported that major U.S. banks, almost all bailed out by taxpayer funds, significantly decreased their loans to small businesses in the third quarter of 2015 while increasing lending to Fortune 500 companies. Crony capitalism is, indeed, doing very well, and is more alive than ever after seven years of the Obama administration. It is the middle class (I.e., small business owners) that is suffering for lack of all advocacy in Washington at historically unprecedented levels of crony capitalism in the U.S. Small businesses just cannot afford Bill and Hillary Clinton’s speaker honoraria!

By exempting themselves from laws, the political class has also been highly successful in carving out special legal standing for themselves while rewarding themselves materially in ways other cannot. Examples abound: For example, five sons of the former Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid worked as lobbyists to Congress during his tenure and, amazingly, no law or congressional rule considers this an illegal conflict of interest. Yet, others under similar circumstances would end up in jail. For example, physicians are prohibited from utilizing laboratories or x-ray facilities for their patients if family members hold even minimal ownership in them.

Another example: Until very recently members of Congress were fully protected from insider trading rules, for which hundreds of regular citizens go to jail every year. When voting for legislation that may benefit commercial interests, politicians’ disclosure mandates are extremely porous. Yet, to go back to examples from the medical profession, physicians and scientists who receive just a coffee mug from a Pharma company have to disclose this fact before giving a lecture to colleagues, upon publishing a scientific paper or when applying for a federal grant. It is perfectly permissible for members of Congress and local politicians to accept luncheon and dinner invitation (aside of political contributions, of course), or go on all expenses paid junkets at luxury hotel resorts and golf courses; yet, physicians are no longer allowed to accept free meals at or paid trips to professional medical conferences.

It should not surprise that more and more of the country is increasingly convinced that the political class is up for sale to the highest bidder, whether it involves the country’s security and foreign policy (while his wife was Secretary of State, President Clinton seriously applied for a permit from the Department of State to give one of his highly paid speeches in North Korea), the economic wellbeing of its citizens, – especially of its middle class and, probably most importantly, the future of our children and grandchildren.

The people’s evolving disgust is also spreading to the intellectual leadership of the country, mostly concentrated in universities, Hollywood and media on both coasts. They are held responsible for many of the recent societal policy changes that have overtaken the country at surprisingly rapid pace, including the legalizing of Marijuana, gay marriage and increasing legislative secularism. The public does not understand why smoking cigarettes in public makes them outcasts yet smoking a joint is widely promoted and considered hip. They see one great social idea after another failing while consuming billions of the country’s treasury, and while poverty in the country is at its highest in decades. And after having elected the first black president to two terms, they find race relations at a tragic new low.

The intellectual leadership of the country is held responsible for all of these developments because it, with increasing arrogance, is propagating empirically untested social experiments of unprecedented size and cost (Obamacare, legalization of Marijuana, global warming, etc.), while the country is slipping into deeper and deeper economic and social malaise. Such moments of national malaise and lack of political as well as intellectual leadership have proven dangerous in history, as they have led to fascism and other forms of dictatorships in the past.

In the current election cycle, a record field of Republicans announced their candidacy for president and we at The Canary were pleased by their youth and apparent riches of talent. Concomitantly, we were disappointed by the lack of talent among Democrats, which made Hillary Clinton’s selection a foregone conclusion (unless she does get indicted by the Justice Department after all, which after the bail out of the IRS by Justice, appears much less likely than we had thought just a month ago). Unfortunately, the Republican candidates, have been disappointing and unoriginal until now, except for the three inexperienced political outsiders, Trump, Carson and Fiorina. On the Democrat side, Hillary has been Hillary: an untrustworthy, lying political operative, who will do and say anything to be elected.

Just weeks before start of the official primary season, the country faces rather bleak options for the 2016 election. We at The Canary, would have never thought the day would come that we wished Mitt Romney was running again. But that’s where we are at this point because the only other alternative appears to be a Trump/Fiorina ticket.

The Federal Reserve is Too Optimistic: This Looks More Like Another Recession

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics and tagged , , , , .

Listening to official and off-the-record comments coming from the Federal Reserve, noting the government’s reports on declining unemployment and optimistic representations of the country’s economic outlook, one would be inclined to believe that the U.S. economy is finally on the upswing.

After years of minimal growth following the most severe recession since the Great Depression in the 30s, it would, indeed, be time to see real growth in GDP and a reversal in Americans’ average income declines over the last decade.

The Fed is allegedly serious about the first interest rate hike in years before year’s end, an enormous shift from an almost zero rate imposed at the height of the worldwide financial crisis. The media considers this further evidence of an expanding economy, since it is generally assumed that the Feds would not start raising rates unless they were convinced that the economy was expanding.

But excuse us here at The Canary for not giving too much credence to what the Federal Reserve believes. As we recall, their track record in assessing where the U.S. economy is headed was not too stellar before the last recession either. Why would we expect them to do any better now?

Let’s recapitulate on what is really going on. To do so, we have to start with a quick worldwide survey, which is relatively straightforward because practically the whole world, except for the U.S., India and a handful of other countries, are already in recession. The most important contributor to the likeliness of a worldwide recession is China. Widely reported by the media, China’s growth rate has started to decline. Economists had predicted that double-digit growth rates were unsustainable but had counted on the ability of the Chinese government to “manage” the slowing of national growth to avoid economic shocks around the world.

There were reasons to trust in the abilities of the Chinese government to manage the county’s economy proactively because it did so very successfully during the 2008 financial crisis. But this time, the Chinese government failed, as witnessed by the crash of the Chinese stock market and the sudden slowing of the annual national growth rate to even below the “promised” 7%. Latest reports suggest a likely 2015 growth rate of 6.5%, and since Chinese government data are untrustworthy, the real growth rate can be expected to fall below 6%.

For any country in the world, including the U.S., a 6% growth would be cause for celebration; for China however, it means almost unmitigated disaster because it suggests continuous uncontrollable declines. Significant economic growth is, however, required to continue improvements in living standards of their one billion peasants and maintenance of social peace.

Declines in economic growth in China have even more significant effects on the rest of the world because, as the largest consumer of raw materials, even relative small declines in Chinese raw material purchases exponentially exert down-pressure on commodity prices around the world, leading to worldwide price deflation and declining growth.

On top of this you can add most volatile political situation in the world since the 1930s, almost revolutionary levels of political dissatisfaction with the political class in most Western democracies (including the U.S.), a European Union in economic as well as political crisis, the largest refugee problem since WWII, and a revanchist and increasingly autocratic Russia with expanding military foot print. It becomes difficult to envision how the U.S. economy could remain an island of growth in an otherwise economically depressed world. Moreover, have you noticed the unprecedented number of empty stores available for rent, in most major U.S. cities?

But here is the real reason why we forecast an economic recession in the U.S. in the very near future (we, indeed, may already be in its early stages): It has been known for decades that birth rate declines are a consequence of a recession. According to national U.S. Birth Registry data, the 2008 recession resulted in the largest recorded decline in national births (of course, nine months later) reported since the 1930s. More recently, a related prognostic “index” was reported when a group of fertility specialists reported that the demand for their services declines significantly during recessions. Indeed, declines in demand for fertility services abruptly declined a number of months before the 2008 recession officially began.

Our friends in the infertility industry are telling us that after continuous growth over recent years, they suddenly encountered a similar downturn similar to those experienced in 2008. Following the 2008 timeline, this would suggest the beginning of a recession not later than November/December of this year.

It will be interesting to see who is a better predictor of U.S. economic activity: The Federal Reserve or the natural instincts of human beings, who automatically reduce reproductive activities when they intuitively sense hard times ahead. We put our money on human intuition and, in full disclosure, have gone into cash.

The World is a Mess, and Nobody Seems to Care

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, Psychology of Obama and tagged , , , , .
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!

The real motivations behind Obama’s deal with Tehran

Posted on by in Blog, Psychology of Obama and tagged , , , , , , , , .
CANARY IN THE MINE BLOG - Obama's deal with Teheran Iran

Former Vice President Cheney was not alone when he wondered what on earth had possessed President Obama to pursue a deal with Iran.

This is, indeed, an interesting question, especially since most commentators in the media are offering only superficial, and mostly irrelevant, answers. Yes, of course, like every president, Obama is concerned with his legacy. He views himself as a contemporary of Ronald Reagan, who significantly influenced the country beyond his two terms in office. In defending the agreement with Tehran, Obama claimed Reagan as an example in negotiating weapon reduction agreements with the hostile Soviet Union, when defending his own determination of reaching a “verifiable” agreement with Iran.

Obama is, however, historically wrong in comparing his Iran deal to either Reagan’s negotiations with the Soviets or to Nixon’s decision to develop a relationship with Mao Zedong’s China. While both, indeed, were hostile countries to the U.S., neither:

– supported worldwide terrorism
– held U.S. hostages
– publically threatened to exterminate another member state to the United Nations/close ally of the U.S.
– generated a street mob yelling “death to America” while negotiations took place

A much better analogy for Obama’s deal with the Iranian ayatollahs is, therefore, Chamberlain giving up the Czech Sudetenland to Hitler. History, of course, recorded the tragic consequences of Chamberlain’s appeasement of Nazi-Germany in the “name of peace.”

So, why would an obviously intelligent president who, one can hope, is aware of history, make such a tragically wrong decision?

The Canary’s has attempted to analyze President Obama’s psychological makeup based on his upbringing, ideological roots and formative teachers in previous posts. This approach allowed us to correctly predict his future behavior on a good number of occasions. A similar analysis, indeed, offers compelling explanations for his outrageous behavior in reaching the recent agreement with Tehran.

Before Obama’s reelection we suggested that though he was trying to obfuscate many of his true ideological believes to get reelected, Obama was basically a third-world multinationalist. Many colleagues, scholars and pundits strongly disagreed with our analysis, though by now, a good number among them have reached similar conclusions. Re-elected and facing a Republican-controlled Congress, Obama has since shaken off the restrictive shackles of an election-driven, political middle ground, and is increasingly willing to “come out of the closet” as the Afrocentric, multi-nationalistic, Marxist ideologue he is.

We also previously noted that in unique contrast to almost every president before him, Obama does not want as stronger, more self-assured America. He despises the fact that, since the Soviet Union’s collapse, America has become the only dominant world power. He was brought up to believe that a dominant America is a mortal threat to the rest of the world, especially the developing world. A principal goal of his foreign policy has been to “diminish America’s footprint” in the world.

For this reason, his administration established the policy of “leading from behind,” which explains why the U.S. military is facing unprecedented levels of military budget cuts.

To weaken the U.S. is, however, not enough if America’s footprint is to be significantly diminished: Other powers have to be concomitantly strengthened if competing power centers to the U.S. are to arise in the world. Internationalists like Obama and Secretary John Kerry, therefore, not only don’t mind that Iran will, ultimately, go nuclear and grow more powerful politically and militarily. They actually welcome a more powerful Iran with nuclear capabilities in the Middle East as a potential balancing force to what they currently perceive as the excessive power of the U.S.

Since the Soviet Union collapsed, scholars of international relations almost uniformly agree that the previously bipolar world has become unipolar, dominated by the unmatched economic and military power of the U.S. This can only be changed if the U.S. is weakened and other nations are given the opportunity to ascend. The ascent of an U.S. ally, like Israel, would be unsatisfactory. A multipolar world can only be reestablished through the ascent of nations inherently hostile to U.S. power.

This explains not only the otherwise completely irrational agreement with Iran but also the administration’s timid behavior towards an increasingly belligerent Russia and an overreaching China: both, of course, also future contenders for newly arising power centers. And it also explains why the Obama administration heavily invests in relations with Communist Cuba and Socialist Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Obama’s views himself as a visionary internationalist who is helping to establish a new world order that benefits the poor and oppressed all over the globe. In doing so, he not only attempts to match but also to exceed Ronald Reagan’s increasing historical importance as the U.S. president primarily responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent rise of the U.S. as the world’s single dominant power. Obama’s real goal for his presidency is, therefore, to outdo President Reagan’s achievements by reversing them and, in doing so, re-establish a multi-centric global power structure.

With such a worldview, the Iran deal, indeed, makes perfect sense. Time to realize what President Barack Hussein Obama’s foreign policy goals really are before it may be too late!

We Were Right: Obama Will Do Everything to Destroy Israel

Posted on by in Blog, Foreign Policy and tagged , , , , , , , , , .
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

Obama and the Marks of a Sociopath, Part Two

Posted on by in Blog, Psychology of Obama and tagged , , , , .
Canary in the Mine: Obama

An unusual lack of empathy, egocentricity and a lack of remorse or shame has become a recurrent theme and pattern of behavior of the +Barack Obama, something that has even started to worry his staff at the White House. Even more remarkably, the over the last six plus years, the overwhelmingly friendly national press core to the President has finally taken notice of it.

Continue Reading