Obama Should Be Impeached For Aiding And Abetting Arab Petro-Terrorists

“[T]he White House’s default position is to double down on the status quo… looking the other way while the regime terrorizes Saudi Arabian citizens, backs reactionary forces in Egypt and Bahrain, and abets violence in Syria. And, of course, avaricious arms merchants, with support from the Pentagon, continue to sell Riyadh billions of dollars in weapons.” — Middle East Research and Information Project, March 27 

It rarely makes the news when Saudi Arabia, one of America’s closest allies, beheads nonviolent criminals. Yet in a recent PBS interview, Bill Maher quoted a New York Times story, saying 19 beheadings have occurred in the kingdom since the news broke that the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL) had begun beheading Westerners.

Only when ISIS acts brutally do we notice that centuries-old Islamic laws are barbaric and inhuman, condoning acts so vile that Vice President Joe Biden said the U.S. would pursue ISIS “to the gates of Hell.”

On Sept. 2, Al-Jazeera reported that there has been a spike in the number of people losing their heads in Saudi Arabia:

The Saudi Ministry of Justice has announced the execution of 26 individuals since August 4. In the seven months prior, 15 executions were carried out, bringing the total number to 41 so far this year. However, there were no executions during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan this year between June 28 and July 28.

“One theory behind the increase is that there is a backlog of cases [since the start of the year],” said Adam Coogle, a representative of New York-based Human Rights Watch.

According Sevag Kechichian, a researcher with London-based Amnesty International, the rate of executions in the first half of last year was high, before slowing down, while this year the reverse is true. One way of explaining this, Kechichian said, is that Saudi authorities may be trying to reach an annual target: at 79, the number of announced executions in 2012 and 2013 was identical.

I suspect it is necessary to keep up appearances. And let’s face it: When a country has the largest of the low-cost oil reserves in the world (drilled and delivered for less than $5 per barrel), with proven pools of 267 billion barrels of sweet crude, what happens in Mecca is nobody’s business.

That is why ISIS, with only a fraction of the amount of Saudi oil reserves, can still be opposed for the outrage of the documented beheading of 1/25th as many people as King Abdullah decapitates every year.

That could all change, however, as Saudi Arabia and its giant pools of oil are being surrounded by the ISIS army bent on global petroleum domination.

Our president was “heartbroken” over U.S. journalist James Foley’s execution and said it was hard for him to hold back tears while speaking with Foley’s family. The president did have the gumption to go golfing that same day. I suspect Barack Obama was contemplative during his golf game, but not over a dead American. After all, he himself has ordered such executions of Americans with drone attacks. I suspect his concern was with the situation facing Saudi Arabia, a desert ruled by Bedouin beheaders.

Yet Saudi Arabia is the only country that in an emergency can pump 12 million barrels per day, which not only caps oil prices below $100 per barrel but prevents an explosion of inflation that could destroy all that Obama has worked for.

So Obama doubles down again and again on the corrupt, cruel and terrorist money-changers that are the House of Saud. It is Abdullah who pays off potential enemies the way Attila the Hun did.

Don’t take my word for it. An Aug. 30, Global Research ran this headline: “Why Does the U.S. Support Saudi Arabia, A Country Which Hosts and Finances Islamic Terrorism? On Behalf of Washington?” The article carried these subheads: “America Has Sold Its Soul for Oil” and “Why Does the U.S. Support a Country which was FOUNDED With Terrorism.”

Yet some people in Washington will support Saudi Arabia even if the leadership of that nation planned — or at least had beforehand knowledge of — the 9/11 attacks. Charges have been made that the Obama administration doesn’t want to know the truth — the ugly truth that Saudi Arabia, if not overtly helping ISIS, is being encircled by them.

It could be that Saudi oil is the real dirty oil in the world — not domestic U.S. drilling and not Canadian oil sands.

North and South American oil may cost more to deliver to the gas station. But as you can see from the chart below, there is plenty of available oil in the Western Hemisphere to meet our needs, which will release us from this Arab fratricide.

john graphic

Because much of Venezuela and Canadian oil sands don’t pool and because American oil no longer bubbles to the surface as it did a century ago, it may for a time cost $1 a gallon more not to buy Arab oil.

Some ducks no doubt will die in oil sands collection pools and some washed-up stars like Neil Young and Daryl Hannah will be outraged at domestic drilling and the harm that may come to a caribou herd. But isn’t it worth a try? What we are doing in the Middle East isn’t working. In fact, things in that region of the world are only getting worse. So we can continue this terrible course and be good loyal subjects to Saudi Arabia, while Muslims like Obama spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting for the future of Arab oil.

I say let’s leave the Middle East to the Arabs. Let’s be prepared to pay the extra buck a gallon for gasoline at least for a couple of years. Let’s keep our kids out of harm’s way. Let’s become energy-independent and, along the way, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Americans. Let Islam murder itself, if it so chooses. And if that means Israel has to stand on its own two feet for the first time in seven decades, that’s too bad.

It is time for the United States to stand up for what is right for the United States. It is time for the president of the United States to act presidential and not like some Saudi servant.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

I Am An Islamophobe Because I Am A Realist — Not Because I Am A Racist

I grow furious as ever more apologists speak to the popular media to proclaim that the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL) is an evil group but is in no way a reflection of the loving, peaceful religion that is Islam. It is time to wake up to the truth that Islam is both a religion and a dangerous ideology bent on world domination.

Not so, said the current president and his two predecessors:

  • In 1994, Bill Clinton said: “[Americans know] the traditional values of Islam, devotion to faith and good works, to family and society, are in harmony with the best of American ideals.”
  • In 2002, George W. Bush said: “Here in the United States our Muslim citizens are making many contributions in business, science and law, medicine and education, and in other fields… [they are] upholding our nation’s ideals of liberty and justice in a world at peace.” And he said: “[Islam] inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality.”
  • In 2009, Barack Obama said: “Islam has always been a part of America’s story… and since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.” He also said: “Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

The truth is, Mr. Bush, we can do a head count of Muslims who live with honesty, integrity and morality. And through polling we can also approximate how many Muslims around the world are driven to lie, deceive and even murder infidels (in other words, us).

Last month, Personal Liberty reported:

According to the results of a recent poll, support for the terror group is likely on the rise throughout the Western world. The poll, conducted on behalf of the Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya by ICM, found that among people in Great Britain, France and Germany 2 percent say they have a favorable view of Islamic State and 7 percent say they have a somewhat favorable view of the group. In France, which has a large Muslim population, 16 percent of those surveyed say they support ISIS; among people age 18-24 in the country the number jumps to 27 percent.

In a report about the poll, Vox’s Max Fisher wrote:

This is alarming, in part because a growing number of Europeans, often from predominantly Muslim immigrant communities, are not just expressing their support for ISIS in polls: they are traveling to Syria and Iraq to join up. The ISIS fighter who killed American journalist James Foley on video last week spoke with a strong London accent. European governments are rightly worried about the implications of this for their own national security.

It is time for our leaders to wake up to the fact that there is a large segment of Islam that is a threat to our national security and that, therefore, it is time to stop pandering to this so-called “religion of peace.”

After all, ISIS may be a small band of bloodthirsty murderers, but they are just one radical group that falls under the religious roof taught in mosques around the world. And as these groups kill and maim their way across the Middle East with ambitions against Americans, few Muslims will openly criticize their religious brethren. In fact, tens of millions of Muslims are in favor of killing infidels and dream of a future where Sharia law rules the world.

Yet our government seems to feel if we apologize enough, give in enough and are humble enough, Muslims will suddenly act like Buddhists and make friends with us Jews and Christians. Even the Washington neocons — the very ones who constantly proclaim that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was the seed that grew to become Adolf Hitler — cannot appease Muslims fast enough or thoroughly enough. I have bad news for these sheep in wolf’s clothing: ISIS is not a few bad apples that turned to terror. ISIS is part and parcel of Islam, an ideology more than a religion, and ISIS is casting a very dark shadow on freedom and liberty.

It seems to me the entire leadership in the West either wants to pacify Islam or is afraid to speak the truth. But avoiding the truth and the true goals of so many millions will not make this threat go away. America has to identify who the real enemy is. That means accepting that both the perpetrators of 9/11 and the terrorists who recently beheaded American journalists are indoctrinated by one religion, and it sure as heck isn’t Mormonism.

I Was ‘Caught Red-Handed’ By Two Mormons

Last year, I was walking home with a bottle of Merlot tucked under my arm, and I came across two young men dressed smartly in dark suits, wearing crisp white shirts and conservative neckties. Clearly, the two were on a mission for the Mormon Church. In high school and college, I had a lot of Mormon and Jewish friends and was even invited to their homes for dinner on occasion. I have to admit that I liked the Jewish faith best because they wouldn’t let me join and I often feel as Groucho Marx once said, “I wouldn’t want to join any club that would have me as a member.”

But I always enjoyed my Mormon friends — at least when it came to playing basketball, since there was no drinking beer together on Friday nights.

I talked to these two polite young men who did seem to care about my salvation, and we had a fun exchange. I told them I thought I was a bit too far gone, but would give them time to make their pitch if I had equal rebuttal time. We had a chuckle and went on our way.

I don’t get that warm and fuzzy feeling when I pass Muslims, which I do quite frequently in the city where I live. Maybe it is just me being silly; but, then again, dozens of jihadists from Calgary have left Canada and gone to join ISIS. In fact two Calgary brothers, Collin and Gregory Gordon, who two years ago lived a couple of miles from my home, were killed last month in Syria fighting for ISIS.

The National Post reported: “Collin Gordon was once an accomplished volleyball player, a sports fanatic and music enthusiast. His Twitter posts painted a picture of a fun-loving but thoughtful young man who loved basketball, electronic music and weekends.”

Last month, following the video broadcast beheading of American journalist James Foley, Collin Gordon tweeted, “10/10. The video of James Foley losing his neck is the perfection of ‘Terrorism.’”

Now I am going to jump to a conclusion: The two young Mormon men I met the other day are not going to go out and murder and celebrate beheadings because of something written in The Book of Mormon. I make the same prediction for Jews and Christians and their holy texts.

I can already hear the few bad apples retort from the progressives reading this. What I want to know is why those apples are showing up only in Islamic barrels.

Liberals Ignore Their Hypocrisy When It Comes To Islam

My wife and I have a daughter-in-law who is Lebanese and who has been shunned by the traditional Muslim elements of her family for committing the sin of falling in love with our American infidel son. Another of our children lived and worked in the Middle East. I was afraid to say too much about Islam in case they would suffer the consequences.

I have learned that in the Middle East, the bosom of Islam (that peace-loving religion), all you have to do is wear a crucifix around your neck to be arrested. And God help you if you are a woman because Allah sure as hell won’t help you. As a woman, you cannot in many Mideast countries be on the street without a male relative, you cannot drive a car or ride a bicycle, and you damn well better have enough clothes on or the roaming bands of religious police will put you under arrest. If you happen to be gay, that’s a death sentence.

Still, the bleeding-heart liberals lecture us on how we should not judge Islam. I’ve got news for you liberals, if we don’t deal with Islam now, they will deal with us the way the Nazis dealt with the Jews. Of course, you could always call-up the ACLU; but if Sharia law ever takes hold, there will be no ACLU.

I like to think I am fearless when it comes to writing what I believe, but even I am afraid to write too strongly about what I really think of Islam — not because somebody will hurt me. To hell with that, come and get me. But I fear repercussions on my publisher and my family. But frankly, as I am on the downside to 60, I don’t like to have to watch every word that I write in the off chance of retribution.

As for you progressives, I expect lots of messages. Yuck it up now. You have that right. But if Islam ever achieves its global goal of world domination, free speech will be something your children and grandchildren will not have; and you will have contributed to that end.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Is Barack Obama A Loyal African Or A Loyal American?

“… I stand before you as the president of the United States, a proud American. I also stand before you as the son of a man from Africa.” — Barack Obama, Aug. 5

Last month, with war looming along the Russia-Ukraine border and just two weeks before an American journalist beheaded by the ever more powerful Islamic State of terrorists known as ISIS or ISIL, the president gathered with 50 leaders of African states as well as some 350 other guests, including key members of his administration and the few supporters on Capitol Hill whom he can count on.

According to Obama, it was history-making because it was a dinner celebrating the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit.

Our President, born to a Kenyan man, was busy ignoring potential global catastrophe as well as dire economic conditions so he could concentrate his attention on Africa.

Obama’s words were novel and something he seems to have felt compelled to say:

This city, this house, has welcomed foreign envoys and leaders for more than two centuries. But never before have we hosted a dinner at the White House like this, with so many presidents, so many prime ministers all at once. So we are grateful for all the leaders who are in attendance. We are grateful to the spouses. I think the men will agree that the women outshine us tonight in the beautiful colors of Africa.

I have been to Africa. Going through Soweto, South Africa, is like getting in a time machine and going backward a millennium. You might argue that’s the result of oppressive whites, but that was hardly my experience.

My father and uncle told me that the area that is now Rhodesia was an oasis when they were there on safari in 1957. When I went there with my uncle, the country — known at the time as Zimbabwe — was tribal, racist (especially toward whites) and wracked with violence.

Yet a mythical vision of Africa persists, despite centuries of genocide, corruption and self-inflicted deprivation. And it is people like Obama and black leaders in America who perpetuate it.

While making his toast (which could have been titled, “Africa is the Epicenter of Civilization”), Obama said:

I propose a toast to the New Africa — the Africa that is rising and so full of promise — and to our shared task to keep on working for the peace and prosperity and justice that all our people seek and that all our people so richly deserve.

I must have missed that part of Africa. The Africa I saw was packed with fearful whites, fearful blacks and terrible black-on-black violence.

Yet Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) — who, I suspect, lives in a gated community — was in attendance and said the dinner was “one of the most exciting things” he had ever seen.

I can conclude only that Rangel has not seen much excitement in his life or he has never been to Africa. But perhaps I’m too harsh. When a gang of black kids started to walk toward my uncle and me in Africa, I was plenty excited — and the excitement died down only when two white cops with submachine guns came around the corner.

Obama’s Ambition Is For The Black Continent To Have Green Energy

Then again, Rangel had much to be pleased about. He said, “To think that the son of an African man is hosting this event in a house built by African slaves.”

Rangel must not know his history very well because massive additions and transformations to the White House occurred in 1882, 1891, during the early 1900s and again in the 1930s. Further restorations were made during the Kennedy administration — a century after slavery ended.

Forgive this inconvenient truth: Obama is willing to bet taxpayer money that Africa, financed by the United States, will become the world’s leader in developing green energy. The president’s Power Africa program has already pledged $7 billion in government funds and leveraged loans to electrify the continent through 2018, including $500 million to modernize Ghana’s electrical grid.

The Daily Caller reported:

The more immediate goal of Obama’s power plan is to install 10,000 megawatts of new energy capacity by 2018 and connect 20 million people to the grid. Ultimately, Obama wants to bring electricity access to 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa — where 70 percent of the population lacks access to reliable electricity.

With little more than two years to go in office, Obama is busy building his legacy and improving his golf game. He has been a dismal president when it comes to building a domestic agenda or in forging foreign policy. America is on the brink of another stock market crash, a worse recession than what we endured in 2008 and soaring oil prices because of the president’s mismanagement of the Middle East.

Obama has added more than $7 trillion in federal debt and he still has two years to waste more money on places like Africa.

This president doesn’t seem to understand that it is not his job to walk in the steps of Martin Luther King Jr., or to be an advocate for his ancestry. President John F. Kennedy was a proud Irishman and a Catholic, but he didn’t defend Catholicism and finance economic growth for Ireland. Instead, Kennedy’s agenda was:

  • To set domestic policies to grow the economy,
  • And to protect America’s vital strategic interests around the world.

In nearly six years, I have seen none of that from Obama. And given the president’s low poll ratings, tens of millions of Americans feel the same way I do. Millions of Africans may be proud of Obama, but millions of Americans loathe him. In the end, is it not what Americans need that matters?

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Is President Obama An Agent For Islamists The Way King Edward VIII Was For The Nazis?

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” — Barack Obama

“The two people who have caused me the most trouble in my life are Wallis Simpson and Hitler.” — Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

Islam is becoming more extreme with each passing year and with only token impediment from President Barack Obama. I believe the president is either naïve or he is purposely helping Islamic aspirations for global domination.

That there is something wrong at the White House is becoming apparent in the wake of the cancer that can be seen in the growing violence in the Middle East by the Islamic State. The terrorist group also known as ISIS or ISIL is a cancer that is a long-term threat to all of us. It is a cancer whose virility can be diagnosed by the gruesome beheading of American photojournalist James Foley, reportedly by a born and bred Englishman who joined ISIS and is now a wanted traitor.

Still, apologists say this and every other terror attack and broadcast execution have nothing to do with Islam. Rather, such acts are the work of terrorists or — as former President George W. Bush called the 9/11 terrorists — “evildoers.”

News flash: Islam at its marrow is the evildoer. It isn’t because the majority of Muslims are involved in a global jihad. In truth, they are a very small minority. Instead, it’s because more than 90 percent of Muslims refuse to speak out against the barbaric goals of the terrorists in their ranks.

In many ways radical Islam is no different than Nazism of the 1930s. But rather than a single race following the evil edict of Adolf Hitler, evil and radical Islam is driven by millions of Muslims following the teachings of the Quran.

Liberalism brings with it an army of appeasers. In the late 1930s, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and America’s ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy, thought Hitler was a leader they could work with. Certainly, most of the 40 million Germans didn’t want war. When the Nazi leadership pressed it upon them, a small minority protested and many were exterminated.

World War III may have commenced, and the apologists are doing their utmost to deny the fact that radical Islam has its sights set not only on the domination of the Middle East but also on — within the next half century — the world.

In an interview with Mike Huckabee, author Joel Richardson said the number of radical Muslims is as high as 250 million. They are soulless when it comes to murder and mayhem against Western democratic nations. That is a quarter of a billion people spread around the world — some likely living not far from you, some hoping for the death and destruction of “nonbelievers” as is proclaimed in the Quran. This idea that Islam is a peace-loving religion — as expressed by Bush and emphasized by a man I consider to be a Muslim, Obama — puts America in grave jeopardy.

I believe that Islam is as evil and an even greater world threat to free thought than Nazism. Radical Muslims are fighting a guerrilla war in which thousands, and sometimes millions, of Islamic zealots become more radical each year and more willing to take up arms against the very peoples who provide them freedom and comfort.

Two hundred and fifty million Muslims are devoted not to a man and twisted hate and political dogma but to their god, their prophet and even their imam. To go against them and the Quran does not risk jail or even execution but the eternal damnation of hellfire.

The Traitor King

If I ever get to the pearly gates and meet Saint Peter and if I am able to get past all my sins, he might ask me what my area of expertise was. I will not say investing or energy or writing, I will say the era of World War II because I have soaked it in all my life through writings and interviews with men of both sides of the European theater of war. Yet one evening, as I watched a documentary titled “Britain’s Nazi King,” I realized how little of that time period I really understood. According to a respected production company, King Edward VIII and his consort, Wallis Simpson, corresponded openly with the Nazi hierarchy and even knew of Hitler’s plan to restore him as the rightful king after the Germans invaded and occupied England. This all happened as Ambassador Kennedy and many others on both sides of the Atlantic believed the defeat of England was fait accompli.

My wife, born in England and a royalist to her core, was out the evening I watched “Britain’s Nazi King.” When she returned home, I told her what I had just watched. She looked at me as if I had completely cracked up.

I didn’t raise the subject again but read much more about it, including how Prime Minister Winston Churchill told one confidant that he believed Edward and Simpson should be shot as traitors.

My wife was shocked when a National Geographic program came on TV regarding the traitorous acts of Edward, especially when she realized that it took five decades before this revelation had been revealed by declassified FBI files.

My wife — just as my English mother — had always believed that the king had abdicated the throne simply because he wanted to marry an American divorcee.

That was hardly so, as it turned out. Allied intelligence had a huge case file on Edward and Simpson. Luckily, Edward had only ceremonial powers. He did not in any way direct the government or the political decisions made by Great Britain.

What if Edward had been an imperial king with immense powers? What if he had not only had dictatorial control of the empire but also a group of loyalists in his court that would have done anything to protect him? What if the aristocracy had been fully invested in him? If that had been the case, I dare say I would be writing these words to you in German.

What Did The President Know And When Did He Know It?

What if there is even a small chance that Obama is loyal to the Quran and Islam? Does that sound crazy? It’s no crazier than Edward being the Nazi king. And even if there is one chance in 10 that Obama is loyal to the Quran and Islam, it deserves consideration because Islam may be a nemesis to the West.

Factor in that there is only one chance in 100 that I am correct of the threat of Islam. Do you want to see your nation destroyed, your values upended, over one chance in a 100? Millions of people play the lottery for one chance in a million. And if a doctor said you have a 1 percent chance of having terminal cancer, how upset would you feel?

I feel very upset. Maybe you and I face only a one in 100 chance of Islam obliterating us, our children and our grandchildren. But even at that, I don’t like those odds. I can only hope I am dead wrong and not a dead infidel.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Is Barack Obama Fueling A Race War?

Responding to rioting, looting and a police force that at times looked more like U.S. combat forces in Ferguson, Missouri, President Barack Obama said: “[I]t’s important to remember how this started. We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances. He was 18 years old, and his family will never hold Michael in their arms again.”

It really started when Michael Brown allegedly committed a “strong arm” robbery of a convenience store 10 minutes before his fatal encounter with a police officer. But more importantly, the results of that shooting and the urban violence that has erupted in its wake began with Obama and his bid for the presidency, in which he concocted his version of social nitroglycerin:

  1. By underscoring racial inequality at every opportunity while failing to create economic opportunities for blacks,
  2. And by arming large and small city police forces with military hardware that is the envy of some nations.

These two ingredients had an explosive and predictable reaction in Ferguson, and some analysts have suggested that other urban areas are a tinderbox for the violence witnessed in Missouri over the past two weeks.

A Time Before Cops Were Wannabe SEALs

In February 1986, my publisher called me up on a Sunday morning telling me he had already rented me a car and that I needed to get to it with my camera and drive hundreds of miles to Hinton, Alberta, where two trains had collided. It was one of those “I can’t stand this job,” moments but it became a great experience because I was the first reporter on the scene. Along the highway, just as I saw the police barricade, I pulled over the car and grabbed my Pentax. I worked my way halfway down a mountain and may have “accidently” crossed the yellow tape the police had set up. I knew I had to quickly take pictures of the locomotives that had collided. They were still spewing smoke and emergency workers were taking body bags off the trains. I knew the opportunity wouldn’t last long because Royal Canadian Mounted Police were milling around the crash. Plus, as it turned out, 23 people were dead.

Halfway through the roll, I decided to take out the film and hide it on my person. As I began my second roll, a Mountie rolled up on me and asked me what I thought I was doing. I showed him my press credentials. He politely asked me for my camera, his gun still tucked safely in its covered leather holster. As he opened up the back of the camera and confiscated my film, he apologized, saying the area was sealed off from reporters. Then he gave me the best directions to get back to my rental car.

It turned out my photos were published nationally because they were the only legitimate ones of frenzied work being carried out hours after the crash. All these years later, I’m left flabbergasted in light of the military muscle of the police in Ferguson during the first stage of unrest, including the detainment of two reporters at a McDonald’s for simply doing their job. Police forces, even in small cities, look and act like combat troops. So much for “preserve and protect.” We live in an age where police are on “search and destroy” missions.

To a large extent, the Obama administration has played a large part in the militarization of police forces around the country — a force that, when used, is held to great criticism by the president and his attorney general, Eric Holder.

On Aug. 14, under the headline “The Pentagon gave nearly half a billion dollars of military gear to local law enforcement last year,” The Washington Post reported:

The events in Ferguson, Missouri this week are an uncomfortable reminder of the militarization of America’s small town law enforcement agencies. The photos coming out of the town–of heavily armed officers in full combat gear squaring off against unarmed protesters–look like images we’re used to seeing from places like Gaza, Turkey, or Egypt, not from a midwestern suburb of 21,000 people.

One of the ways police departments have armed themselves in recent years is through the Defense Department’s excess property program, known as the 1033 Program. It “permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer, without charge, excess U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) personal property (supplies and equipment) to state and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs),” according to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.

Small-city cops have been given state-of-the-art sniper rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, helmets, flak jackets and explosive-proof armored tactical vehicles, otherwise known as tanks. Even military helicopters piloted by cops with machine guns pointed at the populace fly above America’s not-so-friendly skies.

I used to go to the boxing gym along with cops. Some of them were great guys. Some of them gave me the willies. All of them stuck together. But there wasn’t one of them that I would want pointing a .50 caliber machine gun at me. And if you are comfortable with local law enforcement aiming such weapons at you, you are probably comfortable with anything.

Arms And Race

That the police feel vulnerable I understand, but that they carry such weapons I cannot understand. I also feel vulnerable in some parts of where I live and in cities I visit. If it were legal, I would still own and, on occasion, carry my Smith & Wesson 10 mm; but I was forced to sell it when I moved to Canada.

But let us be honest with ourselves and ask two important questions:

  • Has Barack Obama eased racial tensions or exacerbated them?
  • Does the TV news — particularly CNN and MSNBC — over-report the victimization of African-Americans at the hands of whites?

I believe the answer to both of these questions is a resounding “yes.” African-Americans are mad as hell. And at least some of that blame must fall on the shoulders of Obama, who promised blacks racial healing along with economic prosperity in his 2008 presidential campaign and then miserably failed at delivering either.

In November, The New York Times published an opinion piece written by Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center in which he wrote:

Have race relations worsened since Obama was elected? The best data, two polls commissioned by The Associated Press, suggest the answer is yes. The number of Americans with “explicit anti-black attitudes” rose from 48 percent in 2008 to 51 percent in 2012, while implicit racist attitudes went from 49 percent to 56 percent. Another set of A.P. polls showed anti-Latino attitudes had climbed between 2011 and 2012.

The attacks on local law enforcement agencies by Obama for their handling of two particular incidents — the first involving his former professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., in the summer of 2009 and the second being the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 (“If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon”) — reflect a president who is, at best, reckless in his comments about race and, at worse, intent to divide a nation that is already deeply divided.

This headline by Breitbart News last week blared out an ominous fact: “5 Race Riots in Obama’s Post-Racial America.”

The story concluded:

These are incidents of mass violence, not merely individual crime incidents. And such incidents are testimony to the continuing sense of racial injustice purveyed by the media and the Obama administration.

And the beat goes on. Obama instructed the feds to perform an independent autopsy on Brown. (He must think the country simply can’t trust those white folks in Missouri.)

Thus, we get this statement from Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon:

Due to the extraordinary circumstances involved in this case and at the request of the Brown family, Attorney General Holder has instructed Justice Department officials to arrange for an additional autopsy to be performed by a federal medical examiner.

What is extraordinary is that the Obama administration is becoming directly involved in a police shooting. Then again, it was a white cop who shot a 6-foot-4 black man. (Brown was 18, which means he was eligible to serve the country in combat.) And from the appearances of his alleged robbery, Brown was at least on that day acting like a thug.

Is anybody really going to suggest that if a black cop had shot a white 18-year-old under those exact circumstances there would be a massive media presence, rioting and looting by whites, and Holder calling for an independent investigation?

If you tell me that such is the case, you are either lying to me or lying to yourself.

The fact is Obama is bringing all this hell to fruition. With one hand he is arming local police like they are the Marines, and with the other hand he is wiping the angst off his furrowed brow because of the racial injustice that prevails in his America. Sounds like the perfect combination for a race war and a state of national emergency.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers  

Is Barack Obama Aiding And Abetting ISIS?

[The Muslim call to prayer is] “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” — Barack Obama

To borrow upon the famous quote from one of the world’s greatest leaders, Winston Churchill, during the Battle of Britain and apply it to President Barack Obama’s response to the Islamic threat that is ISIS: Never in the field of human conflict was so much harm done to so many by just one man.

Churchill and Obama: seldom have two names in one sentence been in such contrast. There stood Churchill, a patriot with a distinguished military record who wanted to take part in the invasion task force that hit the beaches of Normandy only to be ordered not to by the King of England. Churchill, was always at the ready to die for his country. Churchill was striving for world democracy and freedom.

Then there is Obama who is, at the very least, sympathetic to Islam and its goal of global domination.

The most damning evidence against Obama has been his mishandling of the Islamic State group: the most powerful jihad against Christians since the Middle Ages. ISIS stands at the cusp of overrunning and controlling the Mideast in a way that has not been seen since the Ottoman Empire ruled the region 400 years ago.

Does Anyone In Government Read History?

ISIS is unlike any threat the United States has faced. It is determined to build a united greater Arabia, and it may have the petro-wealth and determination to do it. The group’s violence knows no limits. Even al-Qaida has disavowed ISIS.

History is filled with revolutions upon which every cycle becomes more extreme, more violent.

During the French Revolution, Maximilien de Robespierre was a prominent leader who was both celebrated for the reforms he brought and despised for the terror that he helped instill — a terror so frightful his own head was taken by the guillotine.

It was the same during the Iranian Revolution 35 years ago. Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, who went on to become Ayatollah Khomeini’s foreign minister, was part of the group of radicals who overthrew the Shah of Iran. Two years later, Ghotbzadeh was executed, ostensibly for not being radical enough. The same fate almost happened to the first president of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, who was also not seen as religious or righteous enough and had to flee for his life to France where he is living out his old age today.

Radical Islam is on the same path and the culmination of it to date has been ISIS, which is not a group of fundamentalists whose goal is to punish Westerners because of their presence in the Mideast but rather a religious, political and military powerhouse that has been growing unchecked since Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq at the end of 2011. Given that Obama announced this move when he ran for President in 2008, all ISIS has had to do was be patient. The result is a military force that is overrunning Iraq’s much larger army and now has some of the best U.S. military hardware. Its ultimate goal is not just to drive Westerners from the Mideast, but to have Islam as the dominant religion with sectarian systems of government around the world.

Bush Broke It, Obama Crushed It

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell famously dissuaded President George H.W. Bush from pushing into Iraq after American forces had driven Saddam Hussein from his occupation of Kuwait saying, “If you break it, you own it.”

Carry the argument over to a piece of fine bone china and Bush did break it. And as wrongheaded as the invasion and unwanted occupation of Iraq were, George W. Bush was willing to own it and fix it as best he could. In contrast, Obama has walked away from the China shop, swept the shards under the rug as best he could, and posted a neon sign that said: “Please loot at your convenience.”

That a fundamentalist group like ISIS is growing in power and prestige must be left at the doorstep of the current occupant of the White House. Some people may say it has happened out of ignorance, while others sympathetic to Obama will say it is because of his background as an anti-colonist. I say it is because he is an Islamist and a radical one at that.

Obama has downplayed the threat of radical Islam inside and outside the Mideast all along. At the Democratic National Convention he declared that al-Qaida is on the path to defeat. How right he was. What we didn’t know was al-Qaida’s defeat was from an almost unopposed ISIS, which was wreaking havoc on Syria. The President had to know this through his daily intelligence briefings. He also had to know ISIS was taking aim at Iraq, a country in which America sacrificed more than 4,000 lives and nearly $2 trillion — a sacrifice made for a country with massive oil reserves lying at the doorstep of even larger oil reserves in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Of course, Obama has ordered a handful of airstrikes this week as he has hunkered down thinking over this Iraq crisis between golf games during his current vacation at Martha’s Vineyard. And let’s not forget that in June, Obama sent 300 military advisers to Iraq. Three-hundred! That’s a handful more men than George Custer had at Little Big Horn.

Obama: Ignoramus Or Islamist?

I don’t for a moment believe that Obama is stupid, that he doesn’t realize the stakes in the Mideast, including his tepid diplomacy regarding fighting in Gaza. If I am right, and if you agree with me, that only leaves us with one answer: Obama is purposefully letting Islamic extremists overthrow governments that were outlined and established by Western imperialists, regardless of the costs to the world and to the United States.

Forget what the bleeding-heart liberals and the Muslim apologists in the mass media say; growing radical Islamic elements are bent on world domination just as surely as was the Kremlin under Josef Stalin. Their message abounds and volumes have been written about it.

Below is just one example from the Minister of Interior and National Security in the Hamas government in Gaza, Fathi Hammad

“We look forward to future victories, in which, Allah willing, we will liberate our land, our Jerusalem, our Al-Aqsa [Mosque], our cities and our villages, Allah willing, all this in preparation for establishing the next Islamic Caliphate. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are at the brink of a period of global Islamic culture, whose fuel is Gaza, whose spearhead is Gaza, its Jihad fighters (Mujahideen) and commanders are Gaza, Allah willing.”

Today, ISIS with its army could soon earn $100 million per month as it seizes control of captured oil and gas facilities in Syria and Iraq.

Most dangerous of all is that as ISIS garners greater wealth and more territory, the United States is defended by the beliefs and actions of Obama, a man who is the leader of the free world who has ushered these shameful utterances to a Christian Nation:

  • Obama recites the Muslim call to prayer in Arabic.
  • Obama praises and glorifies Islam: “convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith.”
  • Obama states, “Islam has always been a part of America’s story. There is a mosque in every state in the union.”
  • Obama bows to the Saudi king, yet does not bow when meeting the queen of England.

Obama’s words and his inaction against radical Islam show him for what he is, an Islamic wolf clothed as a Christian.

A few months ago, I wondered how much worse can things become given Obama has only two and a half more years in the Oval Office. Given his actions as President and as a sympathizer for radical Islam, things could become much worse.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

No World Order

We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be — we have a real chance at this new world order…” — George H.W. Bush in his Jan. 16, 1991, address to the Nation announcing allied military action in the Persian Gulf

Twenty-three years ago, President George H.W. Bush spoke of his vision for a new world order (NWO). It was heady times to be the President of the United States. It took only a few months for Bush to soundly defeat Saddam Hussein’s military and drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. At the same time, the Soviet Union was collapsing. And in 1989, the Berlin Wall had fallen, as scores of Soviet satellite nations were breaking away from the Kremlin. China was moving away from being a closed-off military power, with the country focusing its sights on growing its economy and its manufacturing.

The “peace dividend” was at hand for Bush, who presumed that the United Nations would help build a world utopia ruled by a benevolent government.

More than two decades later, the NWO remains a fearful contemplation, but one best left for futuristic novels. While many people still sell NWO conspiracy theories in detail (except for their lack of evidence), societies are fracturing at the regional, national and international levels.

Now, halfway through 2014, a sandstorm is blowing out of the Mideast and in Central Europe as tribal, political and religious hatreds boil over into mayhem far beyond the control of a centralized world government.

Along the Gaza Strip, the hatred has spilled so far that diplomacy has become pointless, allowing atrocities by Jews and Arabs to fall toward new lows — each time committed by the ideology of their world order, not a NWO.

Ukraine, the starting point for wars in the past century, is erupting in civil war today, threatening to pull in old foes like the Western powers and Russia into a conventional and eventually a nuclear confrontation.

New World Order Hardly New

I started work with an investment newsletter 35 years ago. I was just a kid two years out of college, and my professional experience was mostly limited to writing about purebred cattle. I was hardly able to muster a sentence when my father — who, to my good fortune, believed in nepotism — hired me on as a researcher.

I spent that first year reading every newsletter that came in the mail, and there were dozens of them. I remember back in 1980 the anti-Trilateralists were in full swing. It was said that the Trilateralists were members of rich industrialists of the 20th century such as the Rockefellers. The-sky-is-falling newsletters said that the Trilateralists’ goal was to take over the world — in other words, one world government.

Each day, I read how the Trilateralists — this cabal of evil men in the United States, Japan and Western Europe — would soon take over the world. This secret organization was all hush-hush, of course; so it was common sense that none of those newsletter publishers could provide details as to who these players were and what their plan was, except to stir up fear of a world government conquest and along the way sell a lot of subscriptions. But the villains were never named, nor were the specifics of their terrible plot other than to say it was the work of world leaders, industrialists and Jews.

I remember wondering how Jimmy Carter, one of the least effective Presidents in U.S. history and a man who checked on the pencil inventory at the White House could be a key member of a camarilla to take over the world. When I asked such a question of “believers,” they would say that Carter was simply an unwilling pawn in it all. It seemed like they wanted me to believe in mind control; and I found that hard to do when, after all, Carter had earlier been a brilliant nuclear submarine scientist.

While anti-Trilateralists could always spin such argument out of whole cloth, they could never detail any facts or provide evidence to back up there theories. It seemed UFO hunters had as much corroboration as the anti-Trilateralists had of single world government conspiracy.

A decade later, I had risen to publisher on my own right. Serious newsletters were writing about the economy, energy, technology and the markets. Few, if any, anti-Trilateralist newsletters were still in publication.

Then a new conspiracy — a money-maker for some publishers — was spawned by the naïve and utopian comments of George H.W. Bush and other world leaders: There is a new world order arriving.

Yet any concept of the arrival of a NWO in government or in banking does not explain what we have today: tribal wars, religious wars and resource wars. Instead, we are living in a rather old world order; and the evidence of it cannot be suppressed, much less blamed on some super-secret secular junta.

Potential For World War III Growing In Central Europe

I would not be surprised to see a shooting war sparked in Central Europe in the next 18 months. World War I was ignited there when Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated a century ago. Twenty years later, Ukraine was rich in resources and living space, the kind Adolph Hitler coveted as Lebensraum for his Germanic people.

Seven decades after Hitler’s defeat, the sort of ultra-national racists who were essential for him are aligning along the borders of Russia and Ukraine. There is a strong potential this regional civil war will draw in Russia and the United States.

Yet that is hardly the extent of the hatred spreading around the world, a hatred that makes the U.N. more of a joke than an instrument of peace.

Islamic State Sending Chills Through World Capitals

The Mideast, the depository for two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves and the last of the world’s cheap oil, is a cauldron of petroleum set to be ignited by a religious war.

Attorney General Eric Holder underlined this when he described the threat posed by the Islamic State group as “more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general.”

Holder expressed his fears because 7,000 people from more than 70 nations, including the U.S., have answered the Islamic State group’s call to arms and have received training in Iraq and Syria. Their ultimate goal is to control all of greater Arabia and reverse European and multinational imperialism, which they feel has enslaved Syria and Iraq. Their ultimate ambitions can be expected to include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other rich oil producers of the region. The group (aka ISIS or ISIL) is a self-sustaining army, the likes of which has not been seen since Hitler’s Wehrmacht rolled first West and then across Europe and into North Africa.

On Aug. 1, Belfast Telegraph ran this headline: “Isis winning its war on two fronts: conquering Sunni regions of Iraq and consolidating their hold on north-eastern Syria.”

The Telegraph reported:

There is no sign that Isis is running out of steam in either the Syrian or Iraqi parts of the caliphate declared by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on 29 June. In both countries its fighting force is growing in numbers and effectiveness, if not in popularity.

By capturing huge oil and gas wells and selling them on the black market for a third of the benchmark price, the Islamic State group is a self-sustaining army. There can be little doubt its primary targets are the stupendously rich oil fields of Saudi Arabia, which has been Washington’s most steadfast ally in curbing Islamic violence and curbing oil prices.

Yet Saudi royals must accept a great deal of responsibility for the Islamic State group, which was spawned from the ultra-Islamic sect of Wahhabism — the most extreme form of Islam. The Wahhabis don’t want to be part of a new world order. They want complete global domination and adoption of Islam throughout the world.

So dominant has the Islamic State group become that it is even spreading its firebrand beliefs from India to Europe and perhaps soon to the United States.

In the July 29 story “ISIS spread makes Europe a ‘tinder box,’” RT interviewed William Engdahl, an award-winning geopolitical analyst:

RT: The group says it’s looking for new recruits. Why do you think it would look for them in Europe, and do you think they will succeed?

WE: I think they are succeeding. The fastest growing religious groups in Germany are jihadists or salafist Islamic organizations that are recruiting young people not even of Turkish or Arabic origins. They are recruiting young German kids who are disaffected, have no goal in life, unemployed or facing a bleak future, and they are being recruited to believe in something, to believe in “dying for Allah”, and that is pretty sick way to live in my view.

It doesn’t sound like the new world order Bush spoke of. Nor does it sound like global order presided over by the U.N. General Assembly, which has been voiceless in recent months. Rather, it reads like world chaos, complete and total disorder, with separatists and nationalists killing those who stand in their way.

We are not living in the age of a brave new world or a new world order. We live in an age when America must elect better leaders to prevent such forces of extremism from destroying the peace and our way of life.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

California’s Drought Could Tip America Toward Economic And Social Turmoil

“We never know the worth of water, till the well is dry.” — saying No. 5451, as collected and listed in Gnomologia by Thomas Fuller, M.D.

Some of the worst drought conditions in recorded history have stricken California, and this will have a blistering effect on America’s economy.

California is into its third year of severe drought, a situation that promoted U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to announce $9.7 million in new agriculture aid. This will top the Barack Obama Administration’s aid to the Golden State at more than $50 million dollars, a total that will undoubtedly grow because of Washington’s worries of a perfect storm — a tsunami of illegal immigrants and a dearth of water.

Last Saturday, the Los Angeles Times carried a story headlined, “California drought will only get worse, experts say.” The story reported that 80 percent of the State is suffering extreme drought, and Brian Fuchs of the National Drought Mitigation Center believes that conditions are not likely to improve. When asked if it is possible that the State is suffering its worst water shortage in 50 years, Fuchs suggested it could be the worst drought in 200 to 300 years and then understated the situation by saying, “It would be a significant event.”

Fuchs echoed what B. Lynn Ingram, a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of California, Berkeley told The New York Times in February, “We are on track for having the worst drought in 500 years.”

An understanding of the implications of a major weather change dating back half a millennium on a crucial region of the world is difficult to understate.

The Most Precious Commodity

Economic implications in themselves from such drought have to be seriously weighed. California Ag-growers are a critical part of the State’s economy, which is the largest in the Union. Besides being the No. 1 agriculture-producing State in the U.S., California has the world’s eighth-largest economy, with a gross State product of more than $2 trillion, or more than 13 percent of the total U.S. gross domestic product. A key component to California’s economy is agriculture.

As a cattle and grain writer for my first few years out of college, I can tell you water is the key component in being able to raise livestock or grow crops. And I know the stories that my father and uncle told about the Dust Bowl and how it endured in their memory because of the personal hardship they saw.

Given that California is the fifth-largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities in the world with annual sales of more than $44 billion, a catastrophic drought will have serious implications that will be felt throughout North America and beyond.

Fortune reported last week that the drought will cost the State $2.2 billion alone this year. And if dry conditions persist as expected, that total will escalate quickly, leaving the U.S. particularly vulnerable to inflation. Already, the dollar has been severely undermined by the Federal Reserve’s campaign of buying U.S. Treasuries, creating escalation in the money supply over the past few years. Inflation has been offset to a large degree because of the excess of cheaply imported manufactured goods (particularly from Asia) and a surplus of farm commodities within North America.

However, the first indicators of inflation are already present. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that the cost of food has increased 2.5 percent in the past year. That is a good number, but the Federal government is predicting — overly cautiously, I believe — that food prices will rise by an additional 3.5 percent in 2014, with prices for dairy and fresh vegetables expected to increase the most.

This is still modest inflation compared to what we can expect in 2015, and that is because California’s agriculture industry is desperately tapping groundwater. This cannot persist forever; because like oil, groundwater is a finite resource.

Last week, The Associated Press reported on the escalating West Coast drought and a study from the University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences. :

“It’s tougher than we thought,” Richard Howitt, a University of California, Davis professor emeritus of agriculture and resource economics.

The drought has not driven up food prices because crops such as corn and grain can be grown in other areas of the country, and farmers in California can use their more expensive water on specialty crops such as almonds that already fetch a high price from consumers, Howitt said.

To nourish those crops, farmers have been pumping more groundwater as the mountain snowpack sends less water to state reservoirs and canals. Howitt urged farmers to take the lead in managing their scarce groundwater.

The groundwater is not being replenished…

La-La Land Is A Smelting Pot For Social Unrest

The media and the markets are looking at the global unrest in Eastern Europe and the Mideast. My worry is a domestic uprising. California has a bad record when it comes to riots. Given the social and political problems presented by wave upon wave of illegal immigrants and now this looming water crisis, an explosive fuse may have been set at the Nation’s southwestern edge. It is important to consider that this California catastrophe did not begin this decade with a drought. It manifested itself with race riots in the 1960s and economic upheaval in the 1970s.

In many ways, the promise that was plump for California in the 1950s has been rotted away by liberal evangelists who have packed their propaganda inside the entertainment industry in wanton disregard for the Nation. For its part, much of the country has too easily inhaled California’s crass culture, loose morals and progressive agenda. And the establishment in the East has made it an easy sell over the past half century. But influence and wealth will not take way this impending catastrophe. So it is again that California will be a trend setter for America — not in fashion, taste or culture, but in displacement, unemployment and urban violence.

It all starts and ends with water — the shortage of water in California that could spark violence and the necessity of water to survive it.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Who Are The Real Racists, Eric Holder?

Prejudice is part of human nature. It dates back eons and once served a purpose which advanced human survival. While it is still prevalent today, it is a fallacy that it is inherent mostly in whites as alluded to last Sunday by Attorney General Eric Holder when interviewed on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” According to Holder, he and President Barack Obama have been unfairly treated because of their skin color.

“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” stated Holder. “You know, people talking about taking their country back… There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.”

Holder is correct — racism exists in America. It also exists in every other corner of the globe. But it is hardly the reason for the President’s record low approval ratings or the discourse in Washington. Instead it is a convenient excuse for an abysmal administration which is itself racist in nature.

Racism: One Of The Original Sins

We see evidence of racial and religious hatred every week, most recently with hostilities erupting in Israel. It is tribal and it can be calmed or it can be exacerbated. President Barack Obama has chosen to make prejudice and racism worse in America.

In his actions, Obama is hardly as Oprah Winfrey claimed him to be, “the [chosen] one.” He has not unified the United States but split it further apart than at any period since the Vietnam War. Polls show that racism is worse today than when Obama took office in 2008.

Obama has maintained that many of America’s problems stem from racism — white racism — that can be shamed and legislated away. And yet it is the President’s own racism against whites is also egregious.

Evidence of this is when Obama reiterated Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s words:

It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That’s the world! On which hope sits!

That doesn’t sound presidential does it?

That the President is a racist is hardly a surprise. Racism exists in nature — a part of the natural order that Obama is more than willing to express but won’t allow in others whom he holds to a higher standard.

Prejudice And A Dog Name Boo

Last winter, my wife and I were babysitting our daughter’s French bulldog, Boo. She is just past the puppy stage and is intelligent as far as dogs go.

My wife Angela had to pick up some things at the corner store, so Boo and I warmed ourselves in the lobby where we live. The building is managed by Romanians. The manager and the maintenance man nearby were speaking in Romanian and the dog became agitated. She was pulling at her leash and attention was on the two of them as she sat on her haunches with hair bristling.

After a few minutes, my wife came and the Romanians greeted her in English. The dog’s entire temperament changed and became friendly. Obviously the dog didn’t understand Romanian any more than it understands English, but the dog understood something foreign from something common. You don’t have to be an anthropologist to see that in primitive societies it would be important for tribal dogs to differentiate, to discriminate, what was common and friendly to them and what was a potential threat. So yes, I confess, my daughter’s dog is prejudiced against Romanians.

I witnessed a similar example with our eldest son when he was an infant 30 years ago. We took him to the Bahamas. He awoke on a bus full of Bahamians. He had never seen a black person before in his life and he began to scream. For the entire trip he was deathly afraid of black people.

Noted Berkeley, Calif., American sociologist and social psychologist W.I. Thomas wrote about what black children experience when they first encounter a white person:

There must be something in the appearance of white men frightfully repulsive to the unsophisticated natives of Africa; for on entering villages previously unvisited by Europeans, if we met a child coming quietly and unsuspectingly toward us, the moment he raised his eyes and saw the men in “bags,” he would take to his heels in an agony of terror, such as we might feel if we met a live Egyptian mummy at the door of the British Museum. Alarmed by the child’s wild outcries, the mother rushes out of the hut, but darts back again at the first glimpse of the fearful apparition. Dogs turn tail and scour off in dismay.

That racism is a natural state is repugnant to modern thinkers, yet instances of it in history abound. I recently read Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors by Stephen Ambrose. Part of the book’s focus is that the Plains Indians were not a homogenous group. Wars within the tribes were rampant as was prejudice between them. Ambrose points out that this was a key reason that the Indians were defeated in short order by the U.S. Army in the 1870s. They simply could not unify as a single force. America may face the same downfall if racism continues to fester, leaving the country without a united front to take on economic wars of the 21st century.

Yet prejudice is portrayed as something heinous that exists in the modern age only and it is directed most often by whites against blacks in the United States. But blacks also harbor racism against whites and modern society has done its best to mute this and keep it under control. This is where Obama comes in.

To the President’s shame, he has exacerbated racism in America. This is evident by the President weighing in on the racist component of the Trevon Martin case and the arrest and controversy of Obama’s former professor at Harvard, Henry Louis Gates, who was arrested by police, ostensibly according to many blacks because of his skin color. All of which has brought racism to the forefront of the American consciousness.

On October 27, 2012 The Washington Post reported on a poll that indicated that racial prejudice has risen during Obama’s first term in office:

Racial prejudice has increased slightly since 2008 whether those feelings were measured using questions that explicitly asked respondents about racist attitudes, or through an experimental test that measured implicit views toward race without asking questions about that topic directly.

In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.

Obama’s tenet that only blacks are victims of white hatred is ludicrous. Prejudice and racism exist everywhere and always have. Good leaders have lessened it. Bad leaders have exacerbated it.

Obama falls into the latter category. It is the legacy he cannot escape.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Obama’s Inbred Tribalism Spurs Chaos In Iraq

President Barack Obama’s Communist, Kenyan father was a product of hundreds of tribal generations. Loyalty to the senior Obama was demonstrated by a comprehensive knowledge that personal allegiances went to:

  1. Self.
  2. Family.
  3. Tribe.
  4. Nation.

If God is even on the list, He is dead last. In this way, Obama is perfect in exerting his will over millions of people with only the needful alliance of a few dozen minions.

It is this perversion of the political system that has shaded the difference between Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. It is so drastically different from the mores of most of the worlds’ people. It’s similar to Josef Stalin, in that Obama could either crush the fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or he could nurture their effort.

In the June 30 edition of TIME, Michael Crowley wrote:

President Obama has kept a wary distance from Syria’s civil war and the turmoil of postwar Iraq. But now that the two have become one rapidly metastasizing cancer, that may no longer be possible.As long as the global economy still runs on Middle Eastern oil, Sunni radicals plot terrorist attacks against the West and Iran’s leaders pursue nuclear technology, the U.S. cannot turn its back.

What sickens me about Obama is that the crux of this crisis in the Mideast is tribalism, the most basic element of which is prejudice.

With Obama it is always the case on how he will instruct Americans to act or even think when it comes to prejudice. But when it comes to the world, he will exploit human prejudices in any way he can, which should not as of yet rule out future political power for himself.

In that same issue of TIME, the magazine addressed the greatest racism in the world, which thrives on Islamic lands.

The Westerners who have sought to control the Middle East for more than a century have always struggled to understand the religion that defines the region. But how could the secular West hope to understand cultures in which religion is government, scripture is law and the past defines the future? Islam has been divided between Sunni and Shiite since the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 and a bitter dispute that followed over who should lead Islam. (Sunnis called for an elected Caliph. Shiites followed Muhammad’s descendants.) Over the centuries, the two sects have developed distinct cultural, geographic and political identities that go well beyond the theological origins of that schism. Today Sunnis make up about 90 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims. But Shiites have disproportionate power, with their control of Iran and their concentration around oil-rich areas.

Iraq was the exception for Sunnis and oil power, at least before President George W. Bush’s invasion more than a decade ago. With Shiites holding most of Iraq’s oil wells, Obama was safe to withdraw U.S. power from Iraq. Obama’s vision of “Mission Accomplished” and Bush’s image were vastly different. This is highlighted by the Pentagon’s belief that the United States could easily lock down the peace in Iraq by keeping 20,000 U.S. ground troops in secured areas. Eventually, Obama settled on just more than 3,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq.

The cost of the war in Iraq did not matter to Obama, which is shocking in that the U.S. spent $1 trillion prosecuting it at the cost of 4,500 U.S. troops killed and more than 32,000 wounded. Obama welcomed home the troops at Fort Bragg and outright lied to them, speaking in the poetic language of a pro-imperialist like Rudyard Kipling.

Obama’s lies were all the more deafening because the people who know him are convinced that he is an anti-imperialist. Yet Obama said, “[W]e’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.”

Obama’s words had barely been uttered when a series of suicide attacks occurred, which have escalated into Iraq’s bloody civil war. But all that matters to Obama is that the Shiites control the enormous oil wealth and much of the Mideast.

That hydrocarbons are dirty in the first place applies to only non-Arabic oil.

Those who find fault with Bush do so based on what they consider his naiveté or his outright stupidity regarding Iraq. The man who proclaimed himself the peace President, Obama, has done more to jeopardize foreign security than any President in the union’s history — to a large degree because of Iraq.

Yours in good times and bad times,

–John Myers