America’s true predicament is too scary to contemplate

AIDS! I remember reading about it in The Wall Street Journal like it happened yesterday. The truth is it was back in 1985 and Rock Hudson had it. An insidious disease was carried by one of Hollywood’s great leading men.

I was in my late 20s and a researcher for an investment letter, which meant I read every day, usually eight hours a day. That gave my mind plenty of time to wander. I wasn’t happy with my life at that time. I had been a feature writer back home, but I was told I was too young and inexperienced to write about markets and the economy. My wife was homesick for her parents; we had a newborn and two toddlers, a big mortgage and a boss with whom I didn’t get along.

So I immediately assumed the worst. I knew if Hudson could get AIDS, anyone could get it — even me. It didn’t matter that I was not a homosexual and I had never injected a drug. The WSJ was writing about AIDS on the front page. It even said that while Hudson may or may not be gay, you didn’t need to be homosexual to be infected with it. It also said that it was first identified in North America in the 1970s and that it could lay dormant for years before some deadly symptoms showed and then you died a terrible, shriveled-up death. It even said an infected person might easily infect his loved ones, not even knowing he was carrying the deadly virus.

I was a blue-blooded young man before my marriage, and I calculated that I was feeling listless and unhappy because my blood was coursing with a terrible virus from the darkest part of Africa.

There was only one thing to do, drive like a bat out of hell and barge in on the family doctor. When I walked in and told him I needed a blood test then and there, he started laughing. To humor me, he asked me personal questions about my total intimate history. Then he started laughing again.

“You know the chances of you getting killed in a car crash coming to see me were 1,000 times greater than you testing positive for AIDS.”

My doctor suggested I start exercising five days a week and that I take my wife on a vacation. After I did that, my worries about AIDS were eradicated. A year later when I bought some life insurance and had blood work, I knew I was simply stewing in worry to ever think it was possible that I had the AIDS virus.

For years, I was embarrassed about that neurosis. But I began to appreciate something my mother used to say: “Our biggest hopes and worst fears are seldom realized.”

She was right, but what should be added is that our biggest hopes and worst fears are often played upon. In the case of hopes the lottery serves as a good example. Your chances of being run over in the parking lot buying a lottery ticket are higher than your chances of winning a million-dollar lottery.

As for fears, even though experts were fearmongers throughout the 1980s about the chances of catching AIDS, the real chances of getting it if you were a heterosexual who didn’t inject drugs were far less than getting struck by lightning. Of course, that didn’t stop sex researchers William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson and Robert C. Kolodny from writing their 1988 book, “Crisis: Heterosexual Behavior in the Age of AIDS,” in which they stated that the AIDS virus was “running rampant” among the heterosexual population.

It wasn’t true, of course. But it sold a lot of books, and it sold a lot of newspapers that reviewed it. And it brought about a lot of good old-fashioned fear.

They were hardly alone. In the mid-1980s, LIFE magazine carried the story “Now No One Is Safe from AIDS.”

At that time, the federal government was warning that AIDS could be worse than the plague and even bought print and TV ads targeting heterosexuals. And bless her heart, Oprah Winfrey, who loved ratings almost as much as she loves money, warned that 1 in 5 heterosexuals could be dead by 1990.

If you are my age or older, you probably remember another plague that was going to wipe out the nation: Legionnaires’ disease. That happened back in 1976, and I was too caught up trying to pass my freshman year to get caught up in that worry. But The New York Times certainly did, running 30 consecutive front-page stories in the autumn of that year about the terrible affliction of influenza that struck a group of old Legionnaires in one hotel in Philadelphia.

Rand Paul doesn’t want to create a panic, but…

Senator Rand Paul told Wolf Blitzer on CNN last Friday he does not want to “create panic” over Ebola, but he stood by his belief that the virus is more contagious than the government is letting on.

“I understand people in government not wanting to create panic, and I don’t want to create panic, either. But I think it’s also a mistake on the other side of the coin to underplay the risk of this,” said Paul. Of course, Paul ought to know. He is an ophthalmologist, which is a fancy word for eye doctor.

The truth is I like Paul for the most part; but for him and for Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Ebola is more a political football than a serious threat.

Of course, I am no expert either; so don’t trust my word on the subject. Trust instead what you have seen in the past. Every so-called killer epidemic in the Western world from Legionnaires to H5N1 (bird flu), which almost shut down Toronto, turned out to be a false alarm.

To date, some 4,000 people have died from Ebola worldwide. Each year, 4 million people die from pneumonia. If you are like I was all those years ago, an infectious disease lets you forget the real problems that exist. And the nation has those in spades. The stock market has just begun a correction that could become a free fall. Unemployment is still far too high, and underemployment is off the charts. The net worth of most Americans continues to decline, as does the standard of living. We have a terrible president in the White House who is MIA, an abysmal Congress, a crumbling infrastructure and $17 trillion in federal debt. And a growing percentage of the 1.2 billion Muslims around the world want to kill and maim us.

This is the real nightmare. The problem is that we have known about these problems for some time. These are not the kind of fears that go bump in the night. So we will live with Ebola until something new pops up, and then we can fret about that killing us.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Is America’s military-industrial complex driving us toward a second occupation of Iraq?

The majority of Americans now believe that airstrikes alone will not destroy the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL) in Iraq and that, therefore, American boots will be needed on the ground. It is a dehumanizing way of saying with absolute certainty that more American blood must be sacrificed: more combat for our troops, greater debts for our children, zero consideration for another solution.

I have an alternative: America does nothing — not one thing — until the sand has settled and jihadists have largely killed each other off.

Why waste American lives in a tribal war where the combatants crucify enemies and behead innocents — a war whose outcome we cannot determine, a war where hatreds between Shia and Sunni religious sects dates back to the Prophet Muhammad?

Washington fails to realize that the Middle East is one giant tar baby. The more America tries to civilize it, Westernize it and democratize it, the more muddied up we become and the more radical Iraq becomes. Each passing month jihadists become more desperate, more barbaric and more like their ancestors of the Middle Ages.

Yet Washington remains along with a good portion of the American public backing it willing to sacrifice more of our youth to combat tribal Muslims fighting to the death in Iraq.

The outcome of which can only be an even greater hatred of the United States and more terrorists willing to murder Americans at home and abroad.

The Bush and Obama doctrines 

Again, our government acts blissfully ignorant, clinging as a religious zealot would to the idea of American manifest destiny — that America has a God-given right to make the world in its own image. In this way, U.S. neocons are not so different from the enemy jihadists. Both are utterly convinced they know the correct path, and both are willing to kill in cold blood to reach their goals.

As for what the world wants, what Europe wants, the neocons couldn’t care less. The wording may be crude, but many in our government still believe what George W. Bush said on Sept. 21, 2001: “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”

This is not the America I grew up in. This is not the country that created the grand alliance to defeat fascism in World War II. But this is an America drunk with power and determined to shape the world anyway its leaders see fit.

So it is not a surprise that after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan many in Washington continue to believe America is on a mission. This makes them almost as deluded as the enemy we fight.

The neocons’ conviction of America’s manifest destiny is not new. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Spanish, Dutch and British empires all believed the same thing and collapsed under the weight of that false premise. In a century from now, the Chinese Empire will likely implode under it as well.

Washington’s manifest destiny is an outgrowth of the 19th century determination that America must expand west. Today, the globalists in government are married to that axiom on a global scale.

Why object to another Iraq occupation if Vietnam was never really lost?

But the neocons don’t seem to read history. And if they did, they would argue that in the 21st century, America has a special right — even an obligation, they might say — to shape the Middle East regardless of the costs in blood and treasure, just as long as it is not their families’ blood or treasure.

So for people like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), America has never lost a war. But once or twice, the time clock ran out.

On July 4, 2008, Salon ran an article titled “What John McCain didn’t learn in Vietnam,” stating:

In 1998, he spoke on the 30th anniversary of the Tet Offensive. “Like a lot of Vietnam veterans, I believed and still believe that the war was winnable,” he said. “I do not believe that it was winnable at an acceptable cost in the short or probably even the long term using the strategy of attrition which we employed there to such tragic results. I do believe that had we taken the war to the North and made full, consistent use of air power in the North, we ultimately would have prevailed.” Five years later, he said much the same thing to the Council on Foreign Relations. “We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and because we limited the tools at our disposal.”

You almost get the feeling that America’s Cold War warriors or today’s neocons only care about the win-loss column, not the greater good of the nation and certainly not that of the world.

What positive end would have resulted from a huge escalation in North Vietnam with a saturated bombing program and perhaps even a Normandy-like invasion, Senator McCain? Such a victory, if you could even call it that, might have cost another $1 trillion and the loss of an additional 50,000 American lives.

That Vietnam is now a stable country sharing a common language and heritage and is a productive trading partner with the United States is no ointment for McCain’s emotional war wounds. Thus, we have a senior U.S. senator who is willing to occupy Iraq for 100 years, as he told CNN during the presidential election of 2008. Imagine the audacity. Americans were once liberators. America liberated France. The Nazis occupied it. And most of all history is never kind to occupying nations, from the Romans to the Germans. Then again, who in our government bothers to read history?

America’s God-given right to shape the world in America’s image didn’t work in Vietnam; and after more than a decade, it is not working in Iraq. Sending more young troops back to die and or be irreparably harmed in the occupation of Iraq only weakens America, an America that was once the standard bearer of hope and decency in the world.

Today, we have become just another collapsing, desperate empire like the collapsing Romans were two millennia ago.

Yet the American public seems willing to buy any war that comes along. Last week, The Wall Street Journal ran the headline “Boots on the Ground: Poll Shows Americans Ready to Respond,” in a story reporting:

The latest WSJ/NBC/Annenberg survey of registered voters found that Islamic State has succeeded in persuading a war-weary nation that American troops on the ground should be used if that is what is required to defeat the militant group.

This is a startling finding in light of the fact that Americans have expressed their preference for fewer entanglements and less involvement abroad.  And yet, a clear plurality (45%) of Americans believe that America should be willing to use its ground forces to respond to the threat from Islamic State.  One in five Americans remain uncertain as to the best path to follow, and 37% oppose using U.S. military forces on the ground.

What should be added into the poll is would you support boots back on the ground in Iraq after 10 years of failure if you knew one of your sons or daughters would be drafted for service to fight in that desolate desert? Also, would you be willing to pay an additional $2,000 flat tax per year to support America’s renewed occupation? I think the answer would be a resounding no.

Millions of Americans think: “What’s another war? ISIS is a worry. Why not just wipe them out of existence?”

That’s all too easy to want but not so easy to implement for the men and women who have to do it.

Want to support the troops? Then keep them out of Iraq

For leaders like McCain, what’s another $1 trillion or $2 trillion of debt and another 5,000 dead Americans? And if you rail against this, you are not supporting the troops. Supporting our troops is not putting them in harm’s way without a legitimate reason and without an overriding mission or mandate. To send our troops as peacekeepers to Iraq, where all sides will target them, is not my idea of supporting the troops.

We do not support our troops beyond the slogans. We provide delayed medical treatments upon their return from active duty, and we don’t even find them a job. Tough luck for them if the Iraq war leaves them physically and emotionally crippled, as well as financially broke. Then again, millions of patriots will give a buck or two and put a second yellow ribbon on the back bumper of the family sedan just so they can show off how patriotic they are in supporting the troops.

I am neither a peacenik nor a pacifist. I believe America must protect itself from any clear and imminent danger. But ISIS is neither a clear nor imminent danger to the homeland. And by killing more Muslims, we only create more radicals bent on attacking Americans.

While millions of Americans would not object to another Iraq occupation (perhaps one that could within a couple of years bring 100,000 troops into combat), the people who would have to carry out that mission — our military men and women — do not want it. Seven out of 10 of the more than 2,200 active-duty respondents to this year’s Military Times Poll oppose the idea of sending substantial U.S. ground forces back into Iraq to battle the Islamic State and their enemies and allies. Furthermore, during the past four years, the percentage of active-duty troops who believe the first U.S. war in Iraq was a success has declined significantly.

“It’s kind of futile in the end — regardless of how well we do our job, the Iraqi government isn’t going to be able to hold up,” Marine 2nd Lt. Christopher Fox told Military Times.

From the War of 1812 to the Cuban missile crisis, it has always been the military making the call to arms. Today, it is the neocons and their Wall Street partners that control a vast propaganda apparatus, including all major media outlets. All of them are barking like dogs of war.

It makes one wonder: Are we waging war to grow democracy or are we waging war to grow the stock prices of companies like General Dynamics (GD, NYSE, $123.54)? This defense contractor’s stock price has more than doubled since the first occupation of Iraq, despite the stock market crash of 2008.

graphic100714

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Avoid paralysis when it comes to investing

“More matter, with less art.” — William Shakespeare, “Hamlet”

I received a phone call from a subscriber a decade ago; she wanted to know where she should invest her money. Her husband had died and left her a considerable sum, and she was rightfully preoccupied with the safety of her estate. I asked her if she had been reading the newsletter, and she said she had but still had no idea of what she should invest in.

I told her that I thought gold would not only appreciate but was also a safe haven. She was not sold. Looking back, that was a shame because at that time gold was selling for less than $300 per ounce. She wanted to know what would happen if Eastern Europe and Russia began to sell all of its gold. She asked whether the price of bullion could fall in half.

I told her that such a precipitous decline was not anticipated but added that if the Russians became massive sellers, there was no doubt that gold would be in a severe bear market. I then told her that if she did not like gold she may want to buy AAA European Currency Unit bonds. She agreed these instruments appeared safe, but she worried about the dollar’s future strength.

“You have written about how the dollar has rallied and how it could continue to go higher,” she said. “What if everyone pours all their money back into the United States? In that case, won’t I lose a lot of money?”

“Yes,” I said, “that would be devastating to your investment. Yet the smart money is betting that the euro is going to rise. Furthermore, if the dollar does rally, I think any loss you will take on your capital ECU bonds will be offset by falling interest rates in Europe.”

She was unsatisfied. “What happens,” she asked, “if my bonds that are backed by European governments become overwhelmed and Europe defaults on their debts? I cannot accept such risk. Tell me someplace else I can put this money — someplace where I can’t lose it.

I was becoming frustrated and told her there is no such place on Earth and that if there were such a place in heaven, she would worry about God’s resignation, leaving everything to go to hell. I told her she was obsessed with worry and besieged by indecision. The line went silent.

I felt bad for being cross with her; but before I could retract it, she calmly thanked me for my time. I never heard from her again, and I don’t know if she made any firm decisions at all. My bet is that if she did, she regretted each and every one of them — not because they lost her money but because they all had the potential to lose money.

I later reflected on this rather inane conversation and thought it reminded me of somebody I was forced to read in literature. Decades earlier, I read “Hamlet” in school and my recollection of it was pretty weak. I decided to go to the bookstore and buy a copy.

“Hamlet” is the story of a Danish prince whose father is the king. He was murdered by Hamlet’s uncle, the usurper. Not only does the uncle steal the crown; but he marries Hamlet’s mother, the queen.

At the beginning, the king’s ghost appears to Hamlet and tells him of the dastardly deed. He begs his son to exact revenge. Thus begins Hamlet’s tribulations. At age 33, Hamlet is ill-prepared to deal with his sinister world as his life has been sheltered. Now he must confront the corruption and immorality within the cold confines of the castle.

For the first time in his life, Hamlet realizes that for every action there are consequences. This is his fatal flaw. He can undertake no action without first ruminating about the ramifications of that action. He agonizes over whether he should live or die, whether he should love or reject, whether he should kill or be killed. In the end he is incapacitated by doubt, even when the fates provide Hamlet with an easy opportunity to kill his traitorous uncle. Hamlet’s inner angst always stops him from taking action.

Throughout the play, Hamlet dispenses with each and every opportunity. Instead of his controlling events, events begin to control him. His inaction leads to complications that not even he could dream of. Circumstance begs for a hero, but Hamlet is a thinker and thus the tragedy. By letting events dictate, Hamlet becomes a victim of fate. And in the end, his mission, his loved ones and he are destroyed.

Intellectuals have lots to say about what “Hamlet” means. To me, Hamlet is a story about a man whose thoughts were too many and his actions too few. Those traits will not make you a successful investor or much of a success at anything. I am not saying that investing does not deserve a lot of thought, but a decision has to be made. And unless the evidence shows you were wide of the mark, you need to stick to your guns. That means swallowing some risk. But there is risk in all things we do. And wanting a reward demands you take them. Because if you have to invest your nest egg and you delay for too long, that will put your financial future at risk.

What Hamlet needed, what we all need, is the proper balance between thought and action. Everyone knows the consequences of too much action and not enough thought. But ruination can also come from too much thought and not enough action. That means growing or even just protecting your money must not only be well-thought-out but backed by a commitment on your part.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Washington and the dogs of war

“Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war.” — William Shakespeare from the play “Julius Caesar”

I am shocked at how stupid people are — especially smart people. The networks have had a busy few weeks selling Washington’s new war project in a very old part of the world: the Middle East.

On Monday afternoon, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer gave an extensive interview with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In case you don’t remember, Blair was President George W. Bush’s lapdog. He led one of the few willing Western nations into Iraq during the invasion and the subsequent “occupation” of the country, which cost the United States more than $1 trillion and killed more than 3,500 American service members.

The 9/11 attack was not in itself enough of a justification to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, so weapons of mass destruction and fears of an imminent attack by Iraq proved to be enough as the Bush administration trotted out expert after expert to testify how the United States was doomed unless Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Blair was one of their biggest advocates. And now he declares, with Winston Churchill-like confidence, that since he was a “leader” during wartime, people must listen to him as he and all the American neoconservatives declare that the United States and Britain must put “boots on the ground” to combat the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL).

The network news is selling the next planned blockbuster: “Iraq II, The Return to Baghdad.” Never mind that the original project was an abject failure and that the crisis that exists today is entirely the result of their actions of invading Iraq in 2003.

The audacity of people like Blair and former Vice President Dick Cheney is beyond my comprehension. The Telegraph reported:

The former Prime Minister said people should “appreciate” that he has learnt lessons through going to war in Iraq and listen to his thoughts on tackling Islamic State because they are “precisely” the same terrorist forces he battled during the conflict.

That sounds like someone asking business advice from Ken Lay, the former CEO of Enron who was also a George W. Bush friend. Lay faced fraud and conspiracy charges. Blair should face charges for his lies about the need to invade Iraq more than a decade ago. It seems that CEOs can go to jail where former Western political leaders go play golf or fish.

Who is really running the war show?

The stage is being set for another war tragedy worthy of Shakespeare. And I will bet anyone that within a year, the next U.S. war against either Iran or Syria will be underway. And whoever the real producers are, along with their stagehands, remains a mystery; but it is also clear that President Barack Obama and those in his administration are loyal actors willing to play this out regardless of the cost in lives and future debt. It is downright criminal and yet so many people will line up to watch this nonsense and then wonder afterward why they paid for the ticket.

Of course, the answer is the military-industrial complex and has been — ever since it sealed the fate of John F. Kennedy. Yet the majority of Americans must be the most gullible people west of the Nile, because despite Vietnam, Watergate and one president who looked into our living rooms and said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” they somehow still trust Washington to tell them the truth. Think of it: more than half a century of constant lies and deception, yet people right now are listening to CNN “telling” them that ISIS must be stopped. In fact, it was suggested on that network that ISIS is the most evil organization in history. Give me a break.

Has anyone ever read about leaders who date from Julius Caesar to Adolf Hitler? They marched across the world with the largest armies seen to date. Even if we accept all the nonsense from network news’ “experts” on ISIS, the organization has at most 30,000 soldiers spread across the Middle East driving Toyota pickups with men wearing ski masks under the hot desert sun. Again, are you kidding me? Thirty thousand bandits whose total number equals a few brigades of the U.S. army are a threat to the civilization? Not yet, but they will be. Just give the government and their propaganda machine six more months of beheadings and ISIS videos telling Americans that they are the bogeyman coming to get us.

To emphasize that fact, Britain has told its citizenry to be on high alert. What that is supposed to do for the good of that nation except sell more Valium pills is beyond me.

The message from London and Washington is: Worry like crazy because you could soon be dead unless you allow us another war to prosecute. So let us tax you more, spy on you more and make your life more under our control. It is not even original! Here is what Nazi party leader Hermann Göring said:

(T)he people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

This brings me back to the quote from “Julius Caesar” that Shakespeare wrote. Twenty years ago, I was starting out as a publisher. We hired a summer intern to do research for us. She was going to a West Coast Ivy League college. This was before the Internet, so I asked her to go down to the library for me. She asked, “Did Shakespeare live before or after Julius Caesar?”

I started laughing. I said, “Shakespeare lived 1,500 years later, but that’s not the funny part. How could Shakespeare write about Julius Caesar if Caesar hadn’t yet existed?”

Goes to prove as Forrest Gump said in the movie named after his character, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

But perhaps George W. Bush said it best, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

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

Is Your Doctor A Drug Dealer?

“You know I’ve seen a lot of people
Walking around with tombstones in their eyes
But the pusher don’t care
Ah if you live or if you die” — Steppenwolf
’s “The Pusher”

I wrote a column in March when I was in a hell of a mess, perhaps close to death. I am no expert on that subject, nor do I hope to become one. But if you read My Recent Brush With Death: Life Saved, Liberty Lost At The Hands Of Socialized Medicine,you will see I was a sick, seized-up old dog.

I don’t believe a living person can rightly judge how close death is, but people can say how sick they felt. For me, it was pneumonia and tachycardia that had the paramedics transfer me to emergency in a screaming ambulance.

Months later, I thought I should tell you I am not sure that the cure isn’t almost as bad as the disease.

I have seen six different doctors, had 11 separate tests and, after all that, I still see three doctors regarding my atrial fibrillation (heart flutter). I have done my best to follow every instruction and to swallow every pill I’ve been ordered to take.

Only because of my own research have I discovered that many people can live with heart flutters for decades and that I may have had this one for years. Perhaps all I had was a case of pneumonia that day the ambulance drove me to the hospital. Just perhaps the medical system is drumming up business along with the big pharmaceutical companies. Most importantly, if this is true for me, it is true for you.

I won’t harp on about my ailments other than to say this: In 56 years, the only medication I took regularly was an emergency asthma inhaler. Yet for the past three months, my doctors — supposedly working together — have had me under orders to take 10 pills a day. Ten pills per day! This despite the fact that I feel good and I exercise one hour every day, seven days a week.

As for why I take all these pills, the doctors maintain I need them because my heart doesn’t beat like it did when I was younger. I have news for them; nothing works in my body the way it did when I was younger. It is called getting old.

But what the hell do I know, right? I have a 1980 Bachelor of Arts degree. When I was taking geology classes, some of my professors may have thought the Earth was flat. They were old-school, and so am I.

I grew up in the 1950s. That was a time when we shut up, put up and, when it came to it, prayed that the doctor we saw knew what he was doing.

I Don’t Know Medicine — Just Plain, Old Economics

I understand the concept of profits and losses pretty well, and the $600 I now spend on monthly prescriptions isn’t causing the doctors any pain. They get big paybacks prescribing those drugs — kickbacks from Big Pharma. It is all very big business, in excess of more than $1 trillion in new pharmaceutical sales around the world each year.

So how well does this Holy Grail of modern medicine work? That depends on whom you ask. This summer is the fifth anniversary of when Michael Jackson’s doctor killed him off and it’s the 34th anniversary of Elvis Presley’s death. Both singers complained they couldn’t sleep. Both doctors fixed them up good and dandy so sleeping would never again be a problem.

Stephen Tyler, the lead singer for the rock band Aerosmith, was on the radio program “The Dr. Oz Show” last September talking about his life of addiction:

You know who the new dealers are? They’re doctors. The dealers aren’t on the street. It’s not a shady guy on the street. You know how many doctors I’ve gone to and said, “I, I, I’m in a 12-Step program, I’ve been sober for. . .” He goes, “Ah, good for you!” On the way out he says, “You need something to sleep tonight?” And I’m trying to tell him that I can’t take anything that’s mood altering, ’cause if I do, I like to ride it. We all do, right?

Making Millions Curing Crazy

If only it was just addictive drugs pushed on Americans, we would probably be all right. For most people it is easy to say no to opiates and just tell the doctor you can deal with the pain. But what do you do if your doctor tells you that your blood pressure is too high and you might have a stroke or, worse, sudden death. But there is good news, he can write you a prescription for two or three drugs and fix you all up. Have allergies? Here’s a pill! Can’t run the 100 meters at 60 like you did at 20? Here’s a pill! Life in the bedroom not the same as when you were 25? Here’s a year’s supply worth! Or my favorite: “Feel a little blue?” Take these antidepressants. Let me know if you feel heart palpitations or the urge to drive your car off the bridge; these are common side effects. They may or may not start working. And if they do, you may feel a tad better in three weeks. So cheer up.

Researchers don’t know why drugs like Prozac, Sarafem, Ladose, Fontex and scads of other antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) work. But I’m willing to bet nine out of 10 doctors whose office you walk into off the street will prescribe them to you. In fact, in 2010 more than 25 million Americans were prescribed a version of these antidepressants. And while there is no proof to show it cures depression, it has been proven beyond all doubt that it makes Big Pharma happy. And isn’t that really what it is all about?

And if you want that young look and just can’t get enough of it with the plastic surgeon, there is what we used to call Vitamin T back in my football days. Back then, testosterone was legal. In fact, in the 1970s the family doctor gave it to me. And I can tell you it works! I became stronger and faster than I ever had been in my life. My skin also broke out in pimples, and I had such terrible rage I had to quite taking it. But if looking a flashy 50 is more important to you than a saggy 60, I am sure you won’t have a problem finding a doctor who will write you a prescription for it.

While Big Pharma is making plenty of money off of sick patients, selling medications to people whose only affliction is that they are aging fattens corporate profits. Since we all want to be young, doctors and drugs get a huge new customer base of people who aren’t even sick. Like testosterone, there is hormone replacement for women and then there is the Cadillac for men: human growth hormone (HGH). Even when it was legal and I desperately wanted to get stronger, I wouldn’t touch it. Yet your doctor can — and just might — prescribe it to you. Beware. As its name suggests, it is involved in human cell growth. And as we get older, more often those cells are cancerous.

The more I’ve looked into this because of my own health, the more disillusioned I have become and the more determined I am not to accept willy-nilly a fistful of pills every morning. That means I have some work ahead of me. And that’s the only advice I can give you: Find a conservative doctor, use the Internet and get a good pharmacist. It’s all out there, and the quality of your life depends upon your doing all three.

Yours in good times and bad times,

–John Myers

Obama’s War On American Coal Reveals Our Manchurian President

“This isn’t an election; this is a coup.” — Ben Marco, as portrayed by Denzel Washington, in “The Manchurian Candidate”

President Barack Obama is with one hand kneecapping domestic coal production and with the other hand forming an alliance with Iran, America’s most dangerous adversary in the Mideast and a country that covets nuclear weapons and Mideast domination. Yet Obama and Iran’s Ayatollah are working together in partnership to stabilize the Shiite government of Iraq, which, if they are successful, will secure crude oil from that region and re-establish Tehran’s dominance.

Presidents have been making deals with Mideast dictators for decades, so in itself there may be nothing wrong with Obama’s actions. It seems so clearly wrong that as Obama orders military advisers back into Iraq and prepares airstrikes, his Administration is issuing proclamations against domestic coal producers, which harvest America’s richest energy resource and provide tens of thousands of jobs that are desperately needed.

If one didn’t know better, one might think this is all part of our President’s plan to cripple U.S. energy independence, a plan to leave America in critical need of Mideast influence and crude.

King Coal Cut Down By Obama

Coal provides America with 70 percent of its electricity. You might think that coal would be valued by Obama because it provides so many well-paying jobs and that it would be the natural energy source for electricity to charge electric cars. (What never seems to compute to so many of the idiot Greens is that there has to be a basis for the charge for the electric car and that electricity, like everything else, isn’t free.)

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, with 1,000 years of coal reserves. Coal can generate the power for all things, even the grand ambition of Obama and the Greens for a million electric cars by the end of the decade. But electric cars need to be charged, and the only energy that is readily available is coal.

I recently watched Bill Maher earlier this month after the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency announced what it calls the “Clean Power Program,” as well as new regulations planned against coal generators. Maher’s guest was EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

MAHER: “Last week [the EPA] announced, I think it was called the ‘Clean Power Program.’ Some people called it a war on coal. I hope it is a war on coal. Is it?”

McCARTHY: “Actually, EPA is all about fighting against pollution and fighting for public health. That’s exactly what this is.”

So, yes, Team Obama is going to war against American coal, while establishing militarily and diplomatic ties with Iran to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Coal power plants must bend to new rules by the EPA. There is a four-month comment period on the dictates that impact coal, coal jobs and coal States. Of course, the Greens have wasted no time weighing in, telling Obama that slamming dirty coal is something they support.

Not all Americans agree the Obama Administration has tried to tiptoe around the fact McCarthy declared a war on coal for her President. And an op-ed penned by Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and published by The Wall Street Journal pointed out that not all Americans are ready to jump on board with regard to Obama’s war on coal.

The “announcement [about the proposed power plant rules] is a dagger in the heart of the American middle class, and to representative Democracy itself,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also weighed in on coal power plant restrictions, saying, “An avalanche of environmental regulations has made it increasingly difficult to build and develop in the United States.”

An independent study by IHS Global concludes the new rules threaten to suppress average annual U.S. gross domestic product by $51 billion and lead to an average of 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030.

Other studies on coal restrictions have predicted that as many as half a million jobs will be lost. Include the tens of thousands of jobs that America will lose when Obama says no to the Keystone Pipeline, and America is looking at the loss of nearly 1 million high-paying jobs, all to prevent what is still a theory of man-made global warming.

America’s Real Enemy

There should be the bigger question: Where is America going to get affordable energy if domestic coal faces restrictions and Alberta oil sands are blocked? The truth is America will be forced to meet its energy needs from the Persian Gulf, that bleak desert that spawned Islam and, likely, Obama’s prophet, Muhammad.

Never mind that it is the worst region in the world to count on for anything other than tribal war and genocide. Remember, in the 1970s the Mideast instituted two oil embargos against the United States. The Mideast founded OPEC to bleed as much money from the West as possible for crude. And the Mideast is and has been for 50 years a breeding ground for terrorists that want desperately to kill Americans, Jews and each other.

Greens, pay attention: If global warming really does exist and if hydrocarbons are part of the reason why it exists, then Mideast crude is also at the heart of your fixation over carbon dioxide. When you get a barrel of oil stamped “Mideast Crude,” it doesn’t mean it burns clean.

Factor in all the carbon and other toxic pollutants created by America’s intervention in this region; it is likely they are more harmful to the global environment than coal that is currently burned in North America. Let’s not forget that for nearly a decade the U.S. used depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan both in ammunition and armor. If the environmentalist’s true goal is to protect human and animal life, here is a suggestion: Have your President stop using it in his arsenal.

According to Wikipedia, the chemical toxicity of depleted uranium is a million times greater than its radiological hazard. Other chemicals being used by America’s military are not doing “Mother Earth” any good either.

Yet I expect nary a complaint about depleted uranium or any of the chemical weapons used as more Mideast wars are prosecuted to secure future “dirty” Arab oil. Nor will there be a mention of the lost lives of young Americans who died not to fight a clear and present danger to the United States but because their war is one fought for a Green President who is aiming to hamstring America’s future while engineering a renaissance for Islam. So please tell me: Who is America’s real enemy?

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Will We Ever Stand Up To The Likes Of Obama?

“Do you want to know who you are? Don’t ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.” — Witold Gombrowicz’s Diary, translated by Lillian Vallee

It’s said that in France the government fears the people and that in America the people fear the government. Not once in the past century has this kind of fear been more palpable than it is under the yoke of the Administration of President Barack Obama.

Few Presidents have been loathed more than Obama. A minority of Americans openly and bitterly complain that Obama is stripping away our Constitutional freedoms and demand political change. A courageous few like whistleblower Edward Snowden risk their freedom and perhaps their lives to obstruct that evil that lies within our Federal government.

The vast majority is either too stupid or too doped up on society’s opiates to comprehend that we are becoming slaves by a power worse than what King George III subjected the colonists to. And while liberals continuously bemoan the enslavement and brutalization of Africans, which occurred in the distant past, they turn a blind eye to the growing enslavement that exists now. Few notice the irony that some of it is being carried out by a sitting U.S. President with Kenyan roots.

Many Americans are either fearful to challenge the Orwellian nightmare of our time or have been co-opted willfully to support a dark government that spies on the people, engages in wanton spending of the peoples’ money and prosecutes foreign wars for selfish ends, against the interest of the people. It is in these non-declared wars that America’s children are cannon fodder with nary a protest and little organized opposition.

Overcoming Fear And Fighting Back

My life’s lesson that came late was don’t be bullied. I had been bullied as a sickly, asthmatic child. Because of that experience, I pushed my sons into karate, boxing and wrestling. One of them asked why I didn’t box if I thought they should. So I became a regular at the gym, training with and sparring younger men and sometimes decorated national champions.

Whether this scintilla of courage was worth it, I will never know. As far as I know, my children were not bullied. But, then again, they grew up in a different world than I did. What I do remember is that I was afraid when I was sparring, and I could overcome that fear only because I didn’t want to be taken advantage of again.

But make no mistake; our government is taking advantage of us. It needs us to shut up and take it so it can pursue its global ambitions, including the jump-starting of what clearly was a lost war that cost $1 trillion in Iraq.

Washington recycles wars the way the movie industry recycles movies. So don’t be surprised by another combat operation, whose moniker should be “Iraq III: The Quest for Arab Oil.” Most will watch it, and hardly a soul will dare question it. They are a fearful, mindless, subservient majority. Many do it because blind trust of government has been programmed into them by an amoral education system, and the propaganda machinery allows the herd to feed on everything from legalized gambling to mind-altering chemicals.

That mindless pursuits are destroying American traditional values is, at best, no concern to the depraved people who hold the reins of power. And their control is allowed because the populace is either cowardly or complacent.

If a foreign power were to persecute us this way, Americans would rise up and take action. Yet we have a 21st century President — with roots in Kenya or Connecticut it matters not — who strips away our liberty while sending our young people to die somewhere where American involvement benefits arms contractors. Seldom is it a foreign enemy that is a clear and present danger. Instead, the enemy comprises leaders who have betrayed the Constitution and the foundation of a free America set forth by the Founding Fathers. Why do we allow this to happen? Are we too afraid or just too damned stupid?

Another Obama Argument For The Habitually Stupid

If it isn’t cowardice or pleasure-seeking that enslaves us, perhaps it is simple stupidity. There is a good argument to be made for that, especially when you consider the outlandish comments of Secretary of State John Kerry after the Obama Administration released the Taliban Five in exchange for an allegedly deranged American combat deserter, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Kerry said the United States has ways of keeping tabs on those terrorists who are now in Qatar. According to Kerry, the prisoner swap was a wise decision because if any or all of these terrorists re-entered the battlefield, the United States can take them out.

“I am not telling you that they don’t have some ability at some point to go back and get involved,” said Kerry, bragging about the capacity of the Obama Administration to protect Americans. “But they also have an ability to get killed doing that.”

Is it just me, or is this the most asinine argument ever made? If we apply Kerry’s logic to World War II, the United States should have released the 450,000 German prisoners of war they captured back to the Nazis, knowing that the Allies could kill them next time. “Here, Hitler. Here is an entire army back.”

Yet I can’t find any criticism of this in the media. Nowhere did the popular press point out the absurdity of what Kerry said. I ask you why you think this is so. Is it because the media are active in selling anything they are asked to sell by the Obama Administration, or is it because they are obtuse?

Either way, it bodes ill, especially with the U.S. preparing airstrikes on populated sections of Iraq. Only a simpleton could believe this is a tactic to bring a tribal civil war to a peaceful conclusion. Yet it is exactly what the President is going to do, even though this entire mess in the Mideast was caused by the previous Administration, which planned to force American democracy upon resistant Arabs.

And consider this brain twister that somebody in the media should — but will not — mention. When America carries out air attacks on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) inside Iraq, Washington will be supporting Iran’s strategic goals. That means that America will, under Obama, become a member of the “axis of evil.”

But not one in 100 Americans will even consider this, just as almost none considered President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were lying when both swore Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction — weapons they said could be targeted on the United States. It would hardly be surprising then that most Americans would in short order be convinced wholeheartedly of the necessity of new military engagements inside Iraq.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Living And Dying Under Radical Islam

We are no longer taking the fight to the radical Islam. They are taking it to us and kicking our butt. Worst of all, they are doing it right in our living rooms in front of our children and grandchildren. But peace-loving and turn-the-other-cheek liberals are providing aid and comfort to the enemy. And if what I have to say offends you, too damn bad. I am living in a city that puts on display some Muslim radicals; and if you don’t believe me, you have not been to my neck of the woods.

The balcony from where I write to you each week faces downtown Calgary, Canada, home to one of the largest Islamic populations in North America. It is also home to a growing breed of militant terrorists who day upon day are being radicalized within a city that used to be known as “Cowtown” because of Western pioneer values. Yet in the heart of cattle country, the Eastern influence has surged over the past decade. It is impossible to leave one’s door and not pass Muslims. Their ranks are growing annually, and their radical membership can only be estimated.

As many as 100,000 Muslims live in Calgary, home to North America’s largest mosque — not seven miles from my door. Most are peaceful, good people. But there is a minority of radicals whose medieval beliefs are focused on the necessary jihad.

Take one of my friend’s former associates, a respected business analyst in Calgary until his career was derailed by his Iraq suicide bomb attack last year. He was Salman Ashrafi, and he was a regular in the downtown oil patch. But he blew himself to bits in November with a car bomb. The good news is that he didn’t blow up a major downtown tower in Calgary. The bad news is that another friend, who works for Canadian intelligence, tells me there are dozens just like him right here in the city I was born.

As I type these words and look to the streets below, I wonder how many women wearing burkas who pass are mothers and sisters to an evil segment of Islam planning another 9/11.

I would write my mayor, Naheed Nenshi; but he is the chief apologist for Islam in this city of more than 1 million people. It won’t be long, though, with the growing demographics until there are more. For example, in Calgary so huge is the Muslim cab drivers’ community that during major events in the city they are provided large arenas downtown to participate in their daily prayers. Every courtesy and convenience is laid out to Calgary’s Muslim surging population, although quite the opposite is reciprocated in draconian Islamic countries that ban Christian churches and jail people who wear so much as a small crucifix. It is ironic, but the saying “when in Rome…” applies only to Westerners and not Muslims.

The population is shifting to where Muslims worldwide are dominating maternity wards and voting booths, while Christian influences are reduced. Iraq is a good illustration and a reminder of how destructive neoconservative policies in Washington are to democratic values over the long term.

Consider Iraq. Since 1991 and the Gulf War, the number of Christians in the country have fallen from of 1.5 million to 400,000, tops. The Mideast is falling into the hands of jihadists who are prosecuting a holy war against Western societies. The remedy for this, believe liberals, is complete submission. To do otherwise, goes the dogma, is to be racist.

Imagine if Western Europe and North America had reacted to the Reds this way before Josef Stalin’s death in 1953. Communists would be the ruling governments from Moscow to London. That didn’t happen in part because of the leadership of Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, who represented separate political parties but were united in their opposition to communists.

Yet under President Barack Obama, quite the opposite is true. There is no Western leader who is more of an apologist, more of an adherent to Islam, than the current President. It is this evil and yet vague destruction of America from within by this White House that makes so many long for his impeachment. Yet it has been the very slippery nature of the Obama Administration’s conduct to Islam that makes it almost impossible to imagine Obama’s departure until he is forced out by the 22nd Amendment.

Yet Obama has plenty of help, and Christian apologists’ watch their ranks grow even as it becomes plain that some in Islam plan for global domination. Crazy to believe, you say? Not according to imam Jamal Hammoud — “senior imam” of the Calgary Muslim community — who states to his faithful:

We have reason to get together and to love each other and to go paint and to paint our future especially in a country like this [Canada] as minority. Muslims are minority in this country [Canada] and Allah Willing in the future they will be, Allah Willing majority. So far we are minority, so when we get together this is kind of jihad in a way.

Don’t fool yourself; Canada is not unique. Inside two generations, it is possible that Islam will be deciding U.S. elections.

Churchill’s Black Dog

Winston Churchill used to call his depressive moods his “black dog.” He saw another dog in the word as well, and it was Islam. Great Britain used to be the vanguard protecting Western ideals and liberal democratic ideals. That empire, unlike America under Obama, had no illusions as to Islam’s global goals. Churchill said:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

Looking back, progressives disdain Churchill for such language, which they call racist. In 50 years, how will America look back at Obama’s leadership and the prone position he has put us in rather than facing up to this global black dog?

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Update: The photo was replaced.

The Ruling Elite’s Last Stand?

“What you’re saying is that ‘I, the superior elite, will take care of you.’ Why? Because, you see, that superior, elite group needs to feel superior and elite. And they can’t be superior and elite unless you have a whole lot of people down there groveling around. So you keep them down there by feeding them.” — Benjamin Carson

I always believed that civilization would go out with a whimper and not with a bang. Now I believe it is going to be such a big bang that it will make Pearl Harbor and 9/11 faint noises. There is an anger building up in America. The elite get richer, split up the chess board and party on the Riviera with Henry Kissinger. The rest of us are left to rot with rotten TV, stale beer and, if desperate enough, a prescription — or what Keith Richards and Mick Jagger called “Mother’s Little Helper.” But this is not enough these days. The government cannot implement good healthcare, military veterans are getting shafted, and the economy seems to be growing only for the ultra elite, whose only job in life is to check on their portfolio once or twice a day.

Ordinary citizens don’t understand that they could — if pressed too far — become the militant minority, that they are part of the 90 percenters who can rise up in protest after they have had their fill of Spider-Man movies, professional sports and drugs they can get from their dealer… I mean doctor.

An American revolt could happen in the space of a heartbeat. Of course, the government and the rich elite know this and fear it; and they have their confident rampart leaders and overconfident generals the likes of George Armstrong Custer.

Last-minute rescues figure prominently in American folklore. Western novels and Hollywood movies have gotten rich over the cavalry riding in to rescue the day and restore the status quo. Perhaps Americans embrace the rescue myth so tightly because it provides comfort. And for 150 years, Americans have been able to count on Washington to ride to the rescue with men and money.

Just consider the history of the past four decades. It appeared certain that Chrysler and Lockheed were finished. Then the Federal government rode in, delivering millions of dollars in taxpayer guarantees. In 1982, it happened with big Federal government guarantees and banks termed “too big to fail.” This was followed by the 1989 bailout of the savings and loans associations when they faced a financial massacre. And who can forget the latest rescue, the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program, which President George W. Bush ramrodded through Congress in October 2008 and which cost in excess of $400 billion? These were not ma-and-pa banks. These were giant investment house banks that were saved; and within a year, they were able to reward themselves with billions of dollars in bonuses. It was criminal and unConstitutional.

My father used to say you don’t learn from your mistakes unless you pay a price. And so it is with the wizards (or lizards) of Wall Street; they’re betting most of the house’s money on every crap shoot, roll of the wheel and hand of blackjack. And why shouldn’t they? The house has the odds stacked; and even if there really is a bad streak of luck, the government will set you back up again. Oh yes, some concessions will have to made, a fine or two and a juicy scapegoat; but the fat rats have grown so big and grotesque that they have eaten even the cats and rolled toward the slop trough while the rest of America drinks a six-pack and watches “America’s Got Talent.” The real talent is the con men in Congress who, with the help of the networks, divert our attention away from the fact that for the past 40 years America’s standard of living has been in decline. If you don’t believe me, drive through Detroit.

For Wall Street and Congress, moral hazard no longer even exists. They can do almost anything with impunity; and it’s the ordinary citizen who gets hurt, gets poor and gets forgotten. To the rich elites, we are second-class citizens — used, owned and discarded. Yet they are more entitled than ever. Such elites existed in Custer’s day, out of reach because the U.S. Army was on hand to protect them.

But there were times that the cavalry could not even protect themselves. Such was the case in June 1876. The Indians would not accept the government’s offer for the Black Hills, and the remnants of the Union’s Civil War Army were thrust into a new conflict.

For Custer, it was a last chance at glory. A puritan war hero with political ambitions, Custer was eager to grab tight the reins of battle.

In the spring of 1876, under the command of Gen. Alfred Terry, Custer’s 7th Cavalry Regiment along with Col. John Gibbon’s infantry were to march up the Big Horn River and force the Indians into accepting government terms. Custer commanded about 800 men and controlled another 600. The army fully expected that the Indians would run, rather than fight. It was further believed that if any conflict arose, the Sioux would be able to field no more than 800 braves. And finally, in the event of real trouble, it was expected that Custer and Gibbon could combine forces with Gen. George Crook and his expedition of 1,300 men. Custer refused to take Gatling guns for fear that they would slow his march, and he left 200 men out of his regiment behind to bring up supplies via pack mule. Custer also begged his superior for permission to act alone if a situation presented itself.

In the early afternoon of June 25, 1876, a situation was presented to Custer in spades. From a ridge to the west, Custer gazed down on one of the largest gatherings of Indians in recorded history. More than 10,000 Indians — Lakota Sioux, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho — lay encamped beneath him along the plain beside the Little Big Horn River.

Despite the fact that Custer had on hand only 600 men and had no idea as to the whereabouts of Crook’s army or Gibbon’s infantry, he decided to launch a preemptive strike, mostly out of fear the Indians would see his cavalry and run. That was his first mistake. His second mistake was to split the forces he had in three. And without consideration for timing, he ordered Maj. Marcus Reno’s men to attack from the south with some 200 troops, while Capt. Frederick Benteen was ordered to proceed with a scouting mission to a far off flank. Custer and his remaining company of some 215 soldiers charged upon the main body of the village from the east.

Reno’s attack occurred first, and it was quashed and repealed within minutes. Then Reno retreated and settled into a defensive hilltop position to save what was left of his company. Custer was attacked by the main body of the Sioux. Light cavalry was never designed to hold a defensive position over overwhelming opposition.

Within 20 minutes of first fire, Custer and his men were dead and mutilated.

This was one of the few times when the powerful elite did not conquer. Native Americans rose up and cut them down. If the ruling elite continue their abuse of power and their thirst for greed, other Americans may do what the Native Americans did.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Are Americans Ready For A Revolution?

“While all our ancient beliefs are tottering and disappearing, while the old pillars of society are giving way one by one, the power of the crowd is the only force that nothing menaces, and of which the prestige is continually on the increase.” — From Gustave Le Bon’s 1895 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind

Imagine sitting in a theater watching a movie. Behind you someone jumps to his feet and shouts, “Fire!”

You can’t smell a whiff of smoke, nor can you spot a single spark. The smoke detectors are silent; the automatic sprinklers motionless. Yet none of this matters. Within seconds, The Crowd has been created. People everywhere are screaming out. A mass of people begins to make its way to the fire escape. Assume you know for certain that there is no fire. You face a choice: either plant yourself in the center aisle and oppose The Crowd, or throw yourself into the throng.

If you are a principled man or woman, you might think it’s your duty to oppose The Crowd. Guess what? Fulfilling that duty will be the last thing you ever do. A panicked crowd is not going to listen to what you have to say no matter how well reasoned it is argued. Opposing it is like opposing a cattle stampede. If you stand in its path, you will surely be trampled to death.

The problem with crowds is they have no ear for reason. Once a contagious fear grabs hold, a crowd loses all sense of objectivity all reason. Truth is meaningless.

There is no way on Earth that you are going to reverse it until the hysteria has run its course.

Crowd Control

The longevity of a government is often dependent on its ability to control and, in some cases, incite a crowd.

Napoleon understood this as well as any leader and used his influence to revitalize France after it had torn itself to shreds during its bloody revolution. The powers that had preceded him — most notably the Jacobins — were able to incite the masses, but thereafter could not control them. A testament to this was the summary execution of Robespierre with the guillotine, the instrument he used so effectively during the Reign of Terror, a 13-month period that claimed the lives of 20,000 Frenchmen.

Crowds are not only pervasive in politics, but are also indigenous to investment markets. As a result, conscientious investors must always be wary of crowds. If one starts to form, markets take on a life of their own, quite apart from reason or reality.

One of the earliest examples of a market gone awry after being besieged by a crowd is the case of the South Sea Bubble.

According to Wikipedia, the South Sea Company “was a British joint-stock company founded in 1711, created as a public–private partnership to consolidate and reduce the cost of national debt.” The real objective of the company and its creator, John Blunt, was to bilk the investment public. After British Parliament legalized the sale of stock in 1711, the South Sea Company issued debentures worth 100 pounds a share. Immediately, the stock rose; but not because of any ventures undertaken by the company.

None of the company directors ever traveled to the South Seas; and none of them took seriously any trade with South America, still a protectorate of Spain, which was unwilling to share any of its spoils. For a decade, this inconvenient fact did not matter. Yet Blunt was able to entice the cream of English society into its venture. Royalty, noblemen and even members of Parliament bought into the South Sea promise.

As this new money washed in, it was used to pay off the few that sold out. By 1718, the South Sea Company attracted a much wider audience. Everyone from cobblers to milkmaids learned of this great new venture that promised profit without work.

Propelled by the capital of the masses, the South Sea speculation took off. The price of a single share began to skyrocket: first to 500 pounds, then to 700 pounds and finally to more than 900 pounds. Then in the summer of 1720, the roof craved in. The plague arrived in England, and a sense of foreboding was everywhere. Money became tight, and investors began to sell out.

But when several of them moved to sell, the company was unable to pay off. The South Sea Bubble burst.

Huge fortunes were wiped out, and thousands of speculators were left penniless. By October 1720, the nation was embroiled in a full-scale financial crisis. Bankruptcies swelled, the real estate market collapsed and, in the end, the government itself fell. England was shaken to its core.

Part and parcel of the South Sea Bubble, and typical of all speculative bubbles over the past 300 years, was the participation of The Crowd. Typical to the late stages of a bull market is swelling public interest. This often creates a crowd.

Cautiously at first, and then later with reckless abandon, The Crowd becomes overwrought with greed, propelling it into a feeding frenzy. Thereafter, markets reach unsupportable heights that can no longer be levitated because the universe of new buyers has run dry. The markets collapse underneath their own weight; and another crowd, rank with fear, rushes for the exits. The bullish excesses on the run-up are now exceeded by the bearish impulses of the downside.

This pattern of surge and crash has occurred repeatedly since the South Sea Bubble. To dismiss it now would be like dismissing the ebb and flow of the tides of human behavior.

Nothing Civil About Civil War

For decades, my focus with the masses was which way they would take the markets. The stock market crashes of 1987 and 2008 showed me that is not going to be the total crisis of confidence if markets face big downward swings only to be puffed backed up by imaginary money created by Congress and the Federal Reserve and that real crisis is going to be when the Federal government steps forward and institutes draconian laws upon all Americans.

What the Federal government doesn’t yet realize is the conflict coming into play from two masses: the liberal lobby for President Barack Obama — with his pro-gay, pro-black, pro-socialist agenda, executed by his secret National Security Agency drone army — and freedom-loving, gun-owning Americans who are willing to fight and, if necessary, die for the Constitution. These are the masses headed to battle, to civil war. And I expected it will happen two years after the 2016 Presidential election. For the first time in my life, I fear blood in the streets.

Yours in good times and bad times,

–John Myers

Black And Gay Sycophants Are Deconstructing America

“We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher, leave them kids alone”
— Pink Floyd, “Another Brick In The Wall”

Liberals are having a difficult time defending Islam. And so they should after a death sentence was imposed on a Christian woman in Sudan for the high crime of not denouncing her personal savior, Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile, the pro-black and pro-homosexual media, such as CNN, focused almost exclusively on NFL wannabe Michael Sam and on the racist of the century, NBA Clippers owner Donald Sterling. There was only a passing mention that a Sudanese court had sentenced a pregnant woman to death.

Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, 27, was convicted of apostasy (the renunciation of Islam) by a Khartoum court, even though she was born and raised a Christian and married a Christian. The court also convicted her of adultery and sentenced her to 100 lashes because her marriage to a Christian man is considered void under Sharia law.

Two thousand years after killing Christians, all that is missing in some Muslim countries are the Romans and the lions. I would tell my liberal friends this, but I no longer have any. I can’t stand their hypocrisy over their pro-rights stance for women along with their defense of Islam, which at its very core robs women of any rights.

And while there is some outrage in America about Ibrahim, so far we haven’t heard a word from President Barack Obama. Obama has plenty of time on his hands when it comes to congratulating NFLer (soon to be ex-NFLer because he is too short and too slow) Sam, who made a spectacle of himself when he was drafted almost dead last by kissing, crying and shoving cake down his male lover’s throat, or when it comes to commenting on a religion near and dear to his heart, Islam. Yet once again, Islam has been revealed for what it is, a werewolf in shepherd’s clothing.

Americans should be shaken that Obama dedicated the National September 11 Memorial Museum in New York last Thursday without one mention of Islam, Muslims or al-Qaida. According to Obama, it is a memorial whose cause was plain-vanilla terrorism, the kind that might spring up in Oklahoma City by homegrown terrorists or in New York City by terrorists from out of the country. I’ve been to the Pearl Harbor Memorial, and I definitely remember the tour guide saying “Japan” and “Japanese” during the tour. But Obama won’t ever make a mention of Islam. He is perhaps too worried about prejudice against his religion or perhaps his Islamic agenda.

Muslims And Their Liberal Supporters Are No Laughing Matter

I suspect Bill Maher is not liked by many of you, but on a typical Friday evening I watch his HBO comedy show so I can see the liberal take on things (best to know one’s opposition) and appreciate his sometimes libertarian views that must make his liberal fans physically sick. Such was the case two weeks ago when Maher and guest Arianna Huffington, the syndicated columnist, got into brouhaha over Islam and its malevolent goals.

Maher was talking to his three panelists about the recent kidnappings of hundreds of Nigerian girls and how little mention there is of the fact that the kidnappers are Islamists. “That (is) the religion at large, (where) women are seen as property, second-class at best, often property,” said Maher.

Huffington argued that it is “dangerous for people to stereotype all Muslims as terrorists.”

Maher answered back: “Where it becomes dangerous is that liberals like yourself do not stand up for liberalism. Liberalism means, one, mostly, equality of women.”

If Maher keeps up this kind of talk, he will be the next Sterling, who is being stripped of his NBA team for sharing his thoughts in what he believed was a private and intimate moment with a parasitic woman who wanted to tape and extort him. Maher doesn’t like Islam, which is mostly black or brown peoples. This must be intolerable to liberals, and even he could be persecuted for sharing his thoughts. But I have a news flash: Millions of minorities don’t like white people either. And I, for one, am not saying they should have to. If you want to hate me, fine. I won’t agree, but I will defend your right with my life to say bad things.

And would someone please stick a secret microphone next to Spike Lee so we can hear what his private conversations are about white people? But do you really think such a recording would ever see the light of day? And if it did, do you think Hollywood would boycott his movies and actors and that set people would refuse to work for him? Do you believe that if he were exposed at his worst, Lee would or even should be washed up? I don’t. I like some of his movies. And even if I didn’t, he should have the right to make them if people are willing to pay to see them. If people don’t like Lee, they shouldn’t pay to see his movies. Regardless, Lee should have his right to privacy. This means that inside his home he should be able to share his worst thoughts on any subject with anyone and not be recorded and then publicly crucified by the media.

Not so, says Kathleen Parker, who makes a living out of writing her opinions for The Washington Post. On April 29 Parker wrote that Sterling had no right to privacy even in his own home:

First the practical: If you don’t want your words broadcast in the public square, don’t say them. The Orwellian taint to this advice is not meant to be harsh but is offered in recognition of the world in which we live. We’re not so much a global village as a small town of gossips.

On a higher note, such potential exposure forces us to more carefully select our words and edit our thoughts. This isn’t only a matter of survival but is essential to civilization. Speaking one’s mind isn’t really all it’s cracked up to be, as any well-balanced person reading the comments section quickly concludes.

Let me get this straight, Kathy. Nobody can speak his mind, especially your readers, and that’s a good thing? So while you get paid big bucks to speak your mind, everyone else should just shut the hell up!

Here is what I want to know: What have you, Ms. Parker, said at your worst private moments when you were tired, drunk or just stupid? Have you never, ever once said the “N” word (isn’t it silly or is it just cowardice on my part that I am intimidated and don’t feel I can actually write that word even though it is on rap radio ad nauseam?)? Or have you never said a derogatory sentence about homosexuals, Mexicans, Republicans, Canadians or the favorite target of the media to which you belong, white, heterosexual men? To prove it, can we implant your body with a recording device. And if you ever once utter such things you consider private, we “judges of society” can have you stripped of your career and property, as is the case with Sterling.

Three Things I Hate Most About Liberals

Liberals seem to see only one side of the coin — their side, which is:

  • Pro-homosexual: I want to vomit every time I hear proud to be gay; when did anyone ever say be proud to be straight? And the more demonstrative gays are (ever notice the overt touching and kissing), the more gay pride they have.
  • Pro-black: If anyone (especially a straight, white man) ever says anything close to a racist comment, liberals want to hang him in the court of public opinion — so much so that white people are afraid of what they say, while black people can spout off as much as they want.
  • Pro-Islam: This is the most dangerous one because it could tie America into a Hundred Years War. And with liberal leaders like Obama, Islam may win it in 20. Muslims are already the fastest-growing segment of the world’s population. And extremism is worse today, according to polls, than it was on 9/11.

All of the above are eating away American values that made this country great. Sorry if liberals think the late 1950s were a terrible period, but I happen to be nostalgic — especially when my feelings are consistent with many positive truths.

Yet Lee told CNN last week that America is never going back to the days of Ozzie and Harriet. I see nothing wrong with the days of Ozzie and Harriet, President Dwight Eisenhower and a dynamo economy. The 1950s were a time when private speech really was private and you could have an opinion and make it public. But that America is being dismantled. And every time the extremists win, the liberals rip away one more brick in our wall.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers