Remaining Democratic government underground must also be drained from the swamp

Posted on March 11, 2017 by David in Blog, Elections, Foreign Policy and tagged blog, clinton, DNC, medvedev. democratic party, Obama, putin, russia, the canary, the swamp, treason, trump, wikileaks.

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!

The post-Obama world

Posted on December 27, 2016 by David in Blog, Foreign Policy, Psychology of Obama and tagged a new world order, blog, Europe, Foreign Policy, henry kissinger, middle east, Obama, post-obama, the canary, trump.

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.

In the end, he just “cannot help himself,” – a final assessment of Obama

Posted on December 26, 2016 by David in Blog, Domestic Politics, Psychology of Obama and tagged Anti-Semitism, blog, Islam, Obama, palestine, Pastor Wright, PLO, Reverend Farrakhan, the canary.

With less than a month of Obama administration left, it would be a mistake to assume that no further consequential activities by the White House will occur out of respect for the incoming administration, even if the President and his family are at their usual Christmas vacation in Hawaii, symbolically within the U.S. at the, likely, farthest territorial spot from Washington, DC.

The last two weeks have, indeed, been telling, with the Obama administration utilizing an obscure law from the 1950s to declare huge swaths of coastal areas off limits for oil and gas explorations, knowing full well that the incoming Trump administration will do everything possible to reverse this decision. Showing, despite all assertions to the contrary, the finger to his successor even more blatantly, was his government’s non-action (i.e., abstention) in the U.N. Security Council vote that condemned Israel’s settlement policies and, for all practical purposes mandated that Israel return all occupied territories to the Palestinians without receiving anything of substance in return to secure the country. The decision to abstain, and allow the absurd condemnation of the only democracy in the Middle East at a time when hundreds of thousands of people are being murdered next door in Syria (with active participation of permanent Security Council member Russia, and millions have become refugees without U.N. Security Council interventions, not only reflects a momentous change in 40 years of U.S. government policy over Democrat as well as Republican administrations but is also very telling about Obama’s character.

Over the last few years, we here at The Canary, have repeatedly attempted to described who, behind his widely acclaimed façade of reserved “coolness,” Obama is. In doing so, we studied his upbringing under the old Jesuit believe that strong influences in their “youth,” ultimately, make the adult man or woman. We, thus, followed the young Barry Obama through religious Muslim schooling in Indonesia, his return to Hawaii, where under truly radical Marxist tutelage (for details, please revisit our 2015 blogs) he graduated high school and went on into a radical leftist environment at Occidental College in California, only to transfer to Columbia University in New York City and later attending law school at Harvard University, throughout, though, remaining within a cocoon of radical Marxist colleagues and teachers, intermingled with Afrocentric radicals and friends from the Muslim world. From the Canary, this is a final assessment of Obama.

Simply based on his biography, we therefore, concluded a long time ago that Obama had to be viewed as sympathetic to Third World anti-imperialism, classical Marxist dialectics and would, likely, be hostile to the idea of Zionism and, therefore, the State of Israel. To expand on the latter, we furthermore concluded that his decades-long extremely close relationship with the Pastor Jeremiah Wright, a virulent Afrocentric Anti-Semite of no lesser proportion than the Nation of Islam Leader, Reverend Louis Farrakhan, Jr., located just a few blocks away from Wright’s church on Chicago’s South Side.

It was over nine years ago that, then first-term Senator (from Illinois) Barack Hussein Obama decided to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination for president. Reviewing Obama’s political evolution in his explosive career from that early starting point, is not only fascinating but also highly revealing because it demonstrates an intelligent and determined individual and unscrupulously masterful politician, willing to use anything and anybody to achieve his goals.

When it came to Afrocentricity, Anti-White rhetoric and Anti-Semitism, Pastor Wright’s church was since its inception known as the Christian counterpart to Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam Headquarters on Chicago’s South Side. Both religious leaders, preached in each other’s religious facilities, and both did not mince words in their sermons, when it came down to the wickedness of Whites, and especially Jews. And, yet, Wright’s church remained Obama’s and his family’s religious home until Wright’s sermons became public knowledge, and threatened to derail Obama’s chances against Hillary Clinton in 2008. Likely even more importantly, however, his association with Wright threatened the backbone of his financial support, which primarily came from two wealthy Jewish family dynasties in Chicago, The Pritzkers and Crowns.

Though they practically considered each other family, Obama, overnight, distanced himself from Pastor Wright, who over all eight years of the Obama Presidency has remained invisible, – and the Jewish money continued flowing (Penny Pritzker also became Secretary of Commerce in Obama’s second administration). Attending an obviously Afrocentric, Anti-White and obviously Anti-Semitic church and developing a close relationship with its pastor, can be a potentially useful strategy for an African American politician building a political career within the African American community, which has become more Afrocentric and Anti-Semitic. But doing that, and at the same time catering to White Jewish Chicago Gold Coast Liberals is, of course, politically ingenious, – if it can be pulled off. And Barack Hussein Obama was the one politician who could pull off this feat, and he could even do it with his Muslim middle name.

This, however, did not mean that, once elected, he would feel an obligation “to give back.: This is, indeed, one of the most surprising of Obama’s character traits: he never felt that he owed anybody for their support; he simply thought he deserved support, whether financial during campaigns or politically, once elected. His narcissism, simply, did not allow him the understanding that people who helped, at least, wanted to hear a “thank you.” Yet, when politically opportune, he would have no hesitation in “rewarding” those who he needed. So, while attempting to develop Obamacare, he was willing to sacrifice even some of the most important principles to “buy off” those groups that had conspired against earlier attempts at building a national health care system under the first Clinton administration (”Hillary care”), including medical insurances, hospital organizations and drug companies.

Following his Marxist education during his youth, later amplified by Saul Alinsky’s “Twelve Rules of Radicals,” Obama never forgot that an important goal warrants all possible means. This became very apparent when major laws, like Obamacare or the rescue legislation for the U.S. car industry, were passed without even a single Republican vote, and when, later in his second administration, after the Democrats lost the House and Senate, he started an unprecedented rule by executive orders and, like in the Iran deal, circumvented the need for Congressional approval by other means. Since the goals warrant the means in Marxist dialectic, these authoritarian actions taken by Obama should not surprise, and more can be expected.

What we can expect in the next three weeks, is difficult to predict. But we only recently noted our suspicion that President Obama will offer generous pardons to a surprisingly large group of people in his administration to prevent further investigations under the Trump administration. And, despite severe criticism not only form Republican but also from leading (though, interestingly, only Jewish) Democratic politicians, we would also not be surprised if further anti-Israeli activities would occur. After all, eight years of Obama administration have very clearly demonstrated that, while Obama may not be the obvious Anti-Semite, Pastor Wright or Reverend Farrakhan are, he, most certainly, has never been and never will be a friend of Israel.

Knowing his background as the child of a Muslim father, his youth in a Muslim school system in Indonesia, his Muslim friends in college, his close friendship with the official representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) of Yasser Arafat in later years, and his close emotional association with the third world and the radical left, which both view Israel as a Colonial power usurping legitimate Palestinian rights, one can really not blame him for being more sympathetic to the Arab world. After all, we all have our biases!

What is, however, worrisome is the impression that arises from Obama’s recent activities that, now unimpeded by political considerations (i.e., elections, fund raising needs, etc.), he is free to pursue his most extreme ambitions without fear of reprisals. And as president of the U.S. that gives him almost unlimited power until January 21, 2017, which is a quite concerning thought, considering the potential damage that can be done to this country and the world in the dangerous times we are living in.

What do Bill & Hillary Clinton have on Obama?

Posted on September 1, 2016 by David in Blog, Domestic Politics, Psychology of Obama and tagged benghazi, blog, clinton email controversy, clinton foundation, clintons, democratic party, Hillary Clinton, Mukherjee, Obama, RICO law, secretary of state, tim kaine, Wasserman-Schultz.

Something peculiar is going on in the Obama – Clinton relationship, and The Canary is not the only one wondering what that is. As based on multiple sources we reported months ago, there is no love lost between the Obamas, especially Michelle and Valery Jarret (considered the third Obama in the White House), and the Clintons. Rumors, indeed, suggested that Michelle and Valerie, with the quiet consent of the President, were actively conspiring to prevent Hillary from becoming the Democratic nominee for the November election.

For a while it, indeed, looked like a grand-scale political charade was underway, with the White House publicly fully supporting Hillary’s candidacy but, behind the scenes, planning an alternative scenario, which ultimately would force Hillary to end her campaign because of a legal quagmire. “Discovered” erased e-mails that were anything but “private,” as claimed by Hillary, and the shenanigans between the Clinton Foundations and the Department of State while Hillary was the Secretary, of course, offered ample opportunity. As even President Nixon found out during Watergate, the willful destruction of government property, especially in the process of the cover up of a crime, is considered obstruction of justice and, therefore, a felony. And, as former States Attorney and New York City Mayor Giuliani repeatedly publicly suggested the “pay to play scheme” between the Clinton Foundation and the States Department should be viewed as a criminal enterprise under the RICO law (Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organization Act), an idea also supported by former Attorney General Mukherjee.

But then, nothing happened to that effect, – except, of course, for the highly unusual 30-40 minute long unannounced (likely, meant to be secret) meeting between former president Bill Clinton and the current Attorney General on the evening of June 27 at the tarmac of Phoenix airport. Four days later, the FBI investigation (if there really ever was as serious investigation) was over, with the FBI Director rejecting a formal indictment of Hillary Clinton but, nevertheless, rather forcefully exposing her misrepresentations to the public and what he described as her highly negligent activities as Secretary of State in keeping the nation’s secrets. President Obama and his wife (though not Valerie Jarret), nevertheless, offered effusive praise for Hillary at the Democratic Convention who, despite almost daily new disclosures reinforcing her insincerity and earlier misrepresentations to the public, has ever since been cruising along in her campaign with apparently considerable safety margins over Donald Trump, the Republican candidate.

At least on the surface, the unmitigated support from the White House can, of course, be easily explained: The most frequently heard explanation is that President Obama is, simply, keeping his word after promising the Clintons in 2012 that he would support Hillary as his successor over Vice President Biden if Bill agreed to campaign for his reelection. There are those who argue that only Bill Clinton’s rhetorical mastery after that pulled Obama over the goal line toward reelection.

A second frequently heard argument is that there is really nobody but Hillary in the Democratic party who could win the November election. Had the Democratic Party’s leadership not conspired against him, and aggressively supported Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee of the party’s primary process would have actually been Senator Bernie Sanders. The party leadership, however, concluded that the country would not elect a Socialist president. Though Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz lost the Chairmanship of the party, and five other leadership positions were replaced after Vicky Leak posted internal e-mails, the media never reported that President Obama, until election of Hillary Clinton as the 2016 nominee of the party, was the actual titular head of the Democratic Party. He, and the White House, therefore, must have been fully informed about how the Democratic party leadership biased the primary election process in Hillary’s favor.

The Clintons also smartly exploited the leadership vacuum in the Democratic party by choosing as VP candidate, Tim Kaine, U.S. Senator from Virginia, a safe but not very inspiring candidate who, therefore, posed no real “threat” to her survival as the principal candidate of the party, even if a threat were to arise to her candidacy during the pre- election period. The party still would have no choice but to unite behind her. The press has been speculating broadly about a promised October surprise from Vicky Leak, including releases of further “erased” e-mails from Hillary’s drove of ca. 35,000 allegedly only “private” e-mails.

Our sources still claim that from the beginning of the primary season the White House really had favored Vice President Biden as a one-term candidate. The concept was that this would allow the grooming of a serious future presidential candidate in the position of Vice President. Emphasizing a desire for a future female president (other than Hillary), the V.P candidate was, therefore, expected to be a female, with Valerie Jarret, Senator Elizabeth Warren and even Michelle Obama being considered as possible candidates.

And, yet, it is Hillary Clinton who, despite strong headwinds, is successfully steaming full speed ahead with, supposedly, full support of the White House. This is that more amazing, considering that almost daily new disclosures about Hillary’s e-mails and the “pay to play” relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department have to be highly embarrassing for the Obama administration. Concerns about exactly such behavior by the Clintons (for which they have been known for decades) had motivated the administration to sign a formal written commitment with the Clintons, committing them to avoidance of any conflicts of interest once Hillary assumed the position of Secretary of State.

Not only is it now obvious that the Clintons breached this agreement, but released e-mails also demonstrate that they, with full intent, circumvented the will of the White House, when, for example, the Clinton Foundation assumed salary support for Sidney Blumenthal, the decade-long stooge of the Clintons, who the White House refused to offer a position in Hillary’s State Department. Though not employed by State, and not approved for appropriate security clearances, he, nevertheless, as e-mails demonstrate, served as a principal adviser to Hillary during her term as Secretary of State (he, inappropriately, also was given access to highly confidential national secrets).

Considering such targeted actions by the Clintons to evade the President’s will, one has even more to wonder about the unflagging support she is receiving. Indeed, not one unflattering word has been heard in months from the White House, on or off the record, in expression of anger about the Clintons’ duplicity. Their misbehaving, after all, also negatively reflects on the Obama administration.

Democratic operatives and pundits in a majority express the official party line that the White House is so glowingly supportive of Hillary because she is the only realistic chance of beating Donald Trump and regaining the Senate. A minority of Democratic officials, and always only off the record, are, however, also wondering, as we here do at The Canary, what the Clintons may have on President Obama that has “converted” the Obama White House into such a “dedicated” servant of the Clinton campaign. Even previously rather frequently heard anti-Clinton comments by White House staffers have been completely silenced.

Though on the left one can never underestimate the importance of solidarity to the movement as a potential motivating factor for the sudden expression of profound love by the Obamas for Hillary, we here at The Canary suspect a much more devious motivation. A more likely explanation may be that the Clintons are in possession of information, which, if made public, would threaten the President’s legacy.

We, of course, have absolutely no idea what that information could be. But, considering the many scandals the Obama administration suppressed over almost eight years through an unprecedented partisan Justice Department, delaying tactics in providing government records to Congress and courts, and unprecedented lack of transparency, any one of those scandals could be highly damaging, if blown open by a Clintonian revelation. What, for example, if it turned out that the instruction for publicly declaring Benghazi the consequence of a silly California movie about the Prophet Mohamed, rather than a terrorist attack, a few weeks before (re)election day, came from the President, himself? Or what if instructions for the IRS to discriminate against right wing and pro-Israel not for profits prior to his reelection came straight from the White House?

Could an appropriate warning from the Clintons to President Obama have been the real subject of the Phoenix airport tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the Attorney General? We will probably never know; but, knowing the Clintons, would anybody be surprised?

The Canary

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

Posted on March 15, 2016 by David in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections and tagged Biden, blog, Donald Trump, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Obama, Presidential Elections, Valerie Jarret.

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.

The World is a Mess, and Nobody Seems to Care

Posted on October 16, 2015 by David in Blog, Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, Psychology of Obama and tagged blog, Military, Obama, Reagan, World issues.

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 Left’s Increasing Trend toward Authoritarianism

Posted on October 8, 2015 by David in Domestic Politics, Psychology of Obama and tagged Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, blog, Cold War, Communism, Karl Marx, Obama, Socialism.

The world was easy to understand during the Cold War: The evil power of Nazism had been defeated, but the other evil ideology of Bolshevik Communism had to be dealt with. While Stalin did not murder innocent people as viciously as Hitler did, his regime was still responsible for the death of millions, as was Mao Zedong’s in the People’s Republic of China, and as were other Communist leaders’, from Cambodia to North Korea and Cuba. For half a century, the struggle between Western democratic-capitalism and Soviet-style Communist dictatorship defined the two principal eco-political options in the world.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991, the ideology of Communism appeared largely defeated. In 1992 the prominent political scientists Francis Fukuyama published his now infamous book The End of History and The Last Man, in which he concluded that Western liberal democracy had “won” the culture war and likely “represented the final form of human government.”

Only 14 years later, it appears rather obvious that his conclusion was as premature as Karl Marx’s prediction that Communism would replace capitalism in his version of the end of history in his book Das Kapital, between 1867-1894.

During the years of Communist-capitalist ideological confrontations, Western capitalist societies were anything but homogenous. While united in support of a capitalist economic model, liberal democracies developed distinctly different social ideologies from the left (democratic socialism) to the right. Indeed, clearly influenced by Marxist principles, left-leaning, social-democratic parties all over Europe very quickly entered mainstream politics, establishing themselves as alternatives to right-leaning conservative/religious political parties.

In the U.S. a similar constellation evolved, with the Democratic Party representing the left and the Republican Party the more conservative and/or religious right. But until relatively recently the Democratic Party maintained a broad variety of opinions, including a distinctive “right wing” of the party. Since Bill Clinton’s presidency, this right wing of the party has progressively shrunk, and completely disappeared with the ascendancy of President Obama and his allies. As a consequence, the Democratic Party of today is practically indistinguishable from Europe’s social-democratic party model, with different degrees of Marxist leanings.

As long as Communist regimes ruled a significant part of the world, social-democratic political parties found it essential to differentiate their Socialist-Marxist ideologies from dialectic Communism/Marxism. With the defeat of Communism, this distinction became less important and less relevant for political success at the ballot box. As memories of Communist-run nations faded into history, the public’s short historical memory allowed for a rebirth of Marxist utopianism, especially among the young, who have never witnessed the catastrophic failures of the Socialist/Marxist economic model.

Even in the U.S., Socialism is no longer considered a “dirty” word, as so well demonstrated by the surprisingly successful current campaign of Bernie Sanders, a declared Socialist from Maine, for the Democratic presidential nomination. Other examples demonstrating a clear shift to the more radical left are very obvious all around the world in the election of Jeremy Corbyn, a radical Marxist outsider, as new head of the British Labour Party, and by explosive growth of radical leftish political parties in Greece, Spain and elsewhere in Europe.

Shifts toward the Marxist left are, however, rarely only dialectic. Indeed, likely the crucial step for Karl Marx’s transition from Socialism toward Communism was his conclusion that the world will not change simply based on ideas, and that any desired change requires proactive interventions. In other words, an inherent component of Marxist Socialism is the forceful intervention into the democratic process, because setbacks in personal freedoms are a small price to pay for the ultimate “good” of a Socialist utopia. An example of this is Castros’ Cuba, admired as a model for Socialist states across the globe.

So, any shift toward Marxist dialectic will automatically be accompanied by increasing trends toward authoritarianism. And this does not only apply to what we observe in third world countries, like Venezuela, where the political shift toward Marxism has led to a de facto dictatorship. Increasing authoritarianism can also be seen in democracies like Argentina and even in the U.S., where President Obama attempts to legalize hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens by decree, even though, as a constitutional lawyer, he must have known that such a step without Congress’s approval is likely unconstitutional (he, indeed, had made statements to that effect in public, and a judge’s temporary restraining order has halted the process).

An even more authoritarian political step was the agreement that the Obama administration signed with Iran, in which Obama circumvented Congress by inappropriately declaring it an Executive Agreement between governments rather than a “treaty” (only treaties require congressional approval). Then he also had his allies in Congress block a debate of a disapproval motion with only a minority of votes in both houses. In doing this, the president imposed what may turn out to be the most consequential international agreements for the nation’s security in decades, even though a majority of Congress in both houses opposed the agreement (and, indeed, based on opinion polls, two-thirds of the U.S. population did as well).

But, likely the most egregious evidence of authoritarianism is the selective interpretation of prosecutorial powers under the Obama administration. Not even under the Nixon and Clinton administrations was the Justice Department as politicized and corrupted as in the Obama administration in failing to prosecute very obvious abuses of power and in using the criminal justice system in pursuit of political goals. None of the scandals that have come to light during the administration were ever pursued by the Justice Department: not the IRS scandal, not the Veterans Affair Scandal, and not the Bengasi scandal (where, totally overlooked by the media, the real question is not where was Hillary Clinton and the degree of her involvement but where President Obama was, and the degree of his involvement). And yet on the other extremes, perfectly-timed threats of prosecutions or actual prosecutions have silenced political opponents more than once (General Petraeus and Senator Menendez are good examples, and Hillary Clinton may become one).

In order to equalize economic conditions for the underclass, the ultimate aim of all permeations of Socialism, of course including Marxism, has historically been “revolution.” Only a revolution of the masses can against the capitalist system can end their discrimination (under Communist dogma, the masses are represented by the “proletariat” under a professional leadership), and initiate the masses’ ascent to power. Since the power of the masses represents the ultimate achievement of any form of Socialism, it should not surprise that such revolutions rarely voluntarily transfers government power back to opposition forces. As contemporary Venezuela well demonstrates, once in power, Socialist/Marxist governments become increasingly authoritarian. They are supportive of liberal democracy as a tool to obtain power but, once in power, quickly dispose of democratic pretense.

Though these movements are often corrupt and outright anti-democratic within their own areas of power, even within the Western capitalistic system, political parties on the left demonstrate strong allegiances to revolutionary movements (see new York’s openly Socialist Mayor de Blasio, a longstanding supported of the Marxist Sandinista movement in Nicaragua or the new Labour Party’s Chief in the U.K., Jeremy Corbin, an avowed supported of Hamas, which is not only radically anti-democratic and homicidal, but also religiously fanatical). Allegiance to the internationalist Marxist view of worldwide solidarity between Marxists and poor, mostly brown and black exploited people, very obviously supersedes any defense of humanitarian and/or democratic principles on the extreme left. As class warfare all around the world appears to come into fashion again, the world will, therefore, witness increasing authoritarianism, while liberal democracies will find themselves under increasing siege.

Though in his upbringing and belief system he is very clearly a Marxist Socialist, President Obama avoided these labels in his election campaigns, and on multiple occasions even went so far as to demean opponents who described him as a Socialist. But in his very obvious contempt for Congress and especially the Republican opposition, he increasingly demonstrates the authoritarianism of his Marxist ideology, characterized by the dictum that ultimate goals have to be achieved by whatever means. His party appears to support him. The party discipline Democrats have exhibited in support of Obama’s policies is indeed remarkable, but better fits Soviet than U.S. parliamentary history. This country can expect considerable authoritarian tendencies from the president in his last 14 months in office.

The real motivations behind Obama’s deal with Tehran

Posted on August 31, 2015 by David in Blog, Psychology of Obama and tagged Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, blog, Foreign Policy, Netanyahu, Obama, Politics, Radical, Tehran.

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!

Obama and the Marks of a Sociopath, Part Two

Posted on June 28, 2015 by David in Blog, Psychology of Obama and tagged Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Obama, Politics, Sociopath.

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.

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

Posted on June 3, 2015 by David in Blog, Foreign Policy and tagged Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, blog, Democrats, Legacy, Obama, Politics, Republicans.

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.