America’s Muslim in chief

President Barack Obama wants gays to come out of the closet. I think it is time for him to come out of the closet as a Muslim.

Point in fact: In the wake of the Paris slaughter that took place last week at Charlie Hebdo, the President’s mouthpieces have already busied themselves in explaining away any connection between that act and the peace-loving followers of Islam.

It makes sense given that the Obama administration called out Charlie Hebdo in 2012 for publishing cartoons satirizing Islam.

Then-White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters: “Well, we are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.”

Carney was speaking for the president, who has dissociated Islam from terror around the globe despite the obvious fact that it is being carried out by Muslims. And notice that Carney didn’t suggest Charlie Hebdo lay off on Jesus, Moses, Buddha or Joseph Smith.

Speaking of Smith, can you picture America’s outrage if Mitt Romney won the last election and celebrated Mormonism the way Obama celebrates Islam? It hurts the brain to think of morons engaging in a global jihad, building armies with aims on regional and even world conquest. And try to picture Romney holding a special White House dinner celebrating Mormonism the way Obama celebrated Islam last summer at a formal White House dinner.

My experiences with young men I’ve met on Mormon missions are that they are well-spoken, well-dressed and polite. Their worst fault is they can sometime be a bit boring. They don’t threaten to cut your head off if you don’t convert.

But nary is there any form of an apology from Obama and his views with regard to Islam and the Charlie Hebdo slaughter. What we have is quite to the contrary. After the French attack by Muslims, Jimmy Carter’s former national security adviser and Obama adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He said “common sense” is more important than freedom of press or expression. Brzezinski must not have read the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Obama constantly makes comments about what he always calls the “Holy Quran,” plus what a peace-loving and progressive religion Islam is. Here are some of the president’s words:

  • “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
  • [The Muslim call to prayer is] “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
  • “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”
  • “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”
  • “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”
  • “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”
  • “[W]e will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities.”

Encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities? That is tantamount to President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaiming in the 1950s that more Americans should go to schools in the Soviet Union.

Now let’s read what Obama has said about Christianity:

  • “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”
  • “If all it took was someone proclaiming, “I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins,” and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they?”
  • “On Easter or Christmas Day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.”

Yes, good Christians, going to church is like being dragged off to an ancient burial site. As for the first quote on Christianity, it may be self-fulfilling if all Islamists disrespect Christianity as much as Obama does.

In fact, the president has taken his pro-Islam stance so far that last summer during a national address, he declared: “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents.” This must come as quite a shock to the founders of the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL). After all, the first word of their organization is “Islamic.” With Obama it is just another pattern of presenting the good side of Islam, as if there were a good side.

Take the case of the 2009 Fort Hood massacre where Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist and closet jihadist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others. The Obama administration called it “workplace violence,” ignoring Hasan’s communications with Muslim extremists.

CNN reported:

The intense investigation into the mass shooting remains largely shrouded in silence. Army officials have voiced concern about jumping to any conclusions about the motive, warning about a possible backlash against Muslim soldiers. Several bystanders, like (Pvt. Joseph) Foster, reported Hasan shouted “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “God is great,” which terrorists have used as a battle cry.

In December 2011, when Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, he said the military has become a “direct target of violent Islamist extremism” within the United States.

Of course, we know who else is on the target list of Islamic extremists — people like us and all nonbelievers in Western democratic countries. Obama disregards this threat not at his peril but at ours.

Finally, it is hard to square away what Obama is saying and what his military advisers are saying, that ISIS is a threat to order in the Middle East and to the world. Regardless of how much the president praises the Holy Quran millions of Muslims draw their radicalism from it, just as millions of Germans drew theirs from “Mein Kampf.”

Others beside Obama seem to finally get it. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, once an Islam apologist, said last April that Western democracies must finally face who the real enemy is.

The Guardian reported:

With support for intervention ebbing fast, especially in Britain, Blair urged a wilfully blind west to realise it must take sides and if necessary make common cause with Russia and China in the G20 to counter the Islamic extremism that lies at the root of all failures of western intervention.

Of course, all this advice is lost on Obama. After all, he is our Muslim in chief.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers  

Obama’s, Saudi Arabia’s beheading of U.S. oil will exact a heavy toll

The price of oil is sinking faster than the Titanic. The influence on it is Saudi Arabia, which has opened up the spigots, forcing down the price of oil to $50 per barrel compared to $110 last summer. The big winner in the crude sweepstakes is Saudi Arabia, which is increasing its world market share. The big losers are U.S. petroleum and shale oil producers who can no longer turn a profit. And the man with the sword in his hands is President Barack Obama.

Obama opposed U.S. petroleum drilling even before he took office. Yet he eagerly bows to the Saudi monarch, the ailing King Abdullah. Obama has provided enormous military hardware to the Saudis even as Saudi Arabia continues to fund Sunni terrorists, including the Islamic State (ISIS). Equally startling is that Obama has set the stage for a commodity price collapse, which could cause the worst economic crisis in America since the Great Depression.

Oil insiders believe that the credit Obama has received for the stunning rebound in U.S. petroleum production is contemptible. While the president did promise to open up new areas for exploration, he also clamped down on the offshore drilling following the BP oil spill in April 2010. Obama suspended offshore drilling leases and authorized an investigation of 29 oil rigs in the Gulf. Later, his administration ordered a six-month offshore drilling moratorium enforced by the U.S. Department of the Interior. That ended only when a federal judge lifted the moratorium, finding it too broad, arbitrary and unjustified.

A Forbes headline in March 2012 declared, “President Obama Has An Oil Problem.” The writer, Robert Bradly Jr., wrote: “In addition to dragging its feet on existing oil sources, the Obama administration has taken blatantly anti-oil actions.”

At the same time, the Obama administration has provided enormous support to Riyadh. In 2010, the Obama administration pulled off the largest arms deal ever. It was a $60.5 billion sale to Saudi Arabia of weapons with offensive capabilities.

Now with Obama’s blessing, Saudi overproduction of crude is in full swing. Last year, petroleum prices underwent their second largest annual decline in history. That has been great news for American drivers. But the cost of Saudi oil dominance cannot simply be measured at the gas pump. ConocoPhillips, a major player in the U.S. shale industry, has announced that it will “defer significant investment” in U.S. shale oil until returns look more promising. That isn’t likely until oil prices recover to more than $65 per barrel.

Deflation: The coming collapse of commodity prices

The global impact of crashing crude is what worries me most. Last month, Goldman Sachs reported nearly $1 trillion in investments in future oil projects will not happen at today’s prices. That was after looking at what was to be the development of 400 of the world’s largest planned oil and gas fields, not including U.S. shale projects. Factor those, and thousands of good-paying American jobs will disappear.

Obama is playing a dangerous game conspiring with Saudi Arabia. If crude prices continue to fall, as I believe they will, to below $40 per barrel, it will have a crippling impact on the commodity markets. We are almost certain to see Obama’s trickle “down” economics to do far more than just cripple the budding U.S. oil shale industry. I predict that in 2015 every resource industry from agriculture to mining is going to begin a serious decline that may last until the end of this decade.

Last year, billionaire and Obama confidante Warren Buffet was purchasing up wind farms. Buffet is shrewd. In five years, wind farms may be the only farms worth owning. I witnessed it before in the early 1980s when crashing oil prices crippled not only oil-dependent states like Texas and Alaska but also farm and mining states like Nebraska, Iowa and Idaho.

I saw the farming crisis firsthand when I was 22 and writing for a cattle magazine. I already had a general understanding of the boon years of the 1970s and the enormous correction that was occurring then, in the early ’80s, because my uncle owned a 2,000-acre mixed farm. He was lucky to sell out near the top, but many of our family’s friends who knew of no other way of life were bankrupted.

During those first years as a young writer, I would sometimes be driving through farm country. I saw the devastation.

According to Neil E. Harl, an Iowa State economics professor, more than three percent of the 2.4 million farmers in the U.S. left the farm each year in the early 1980s. In 1985, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported net farm income fell by nearly one-third during the first half of that decade. As farm commodity values declined, farmland values plunged. And that broke the backs of tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers.

Saudi Arabia and Barack Obama: A sinister alliance?

At my next job as an investment writer, I saw the same havoc in the mining industry. The Idaho Silver Valley, which had provided so many jobs to miners in the ’70s, was abandoned in the ’80s. Those families that stayed on were mostly impoverished as mine upon mine shut down. Today, the region — including surrounding cities like Spokane, Washington, and Great Falls, Montana — is a remnant of what it was during the boon in the ’70s.

It seems Obama is providing too much to Saudi Arabia where Christianity is illegal and where weekly beheadings draw large audiences. Even more disturbing is that Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest financial backer of the worst jihadist groups, including ISIS. WikiLeaks disclosed a 2009 State Department communication by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which read, “[D]onors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

So even as Obama promises to fight Islamic extremism, he is backing the very kingdom that is backing the crazies who want to kill Americans. Others agree, including Larry Klayman, whose article was published last Saturday by WND:

Indeed, under the “leadership” of our “Black-Muslim in Chief” — who favors all things African and Islamic over the rest of us — it is likely that the nation and the world is about to explode at any moment. Things have simply been simmering along for too long for this not to occur at some point.

Obama continues to put America more at risk each passing month. His close relationship with Saudi Arabia should alone have him impeached but of course he is almost untouchable because of his heritage and his powerful friends in and out of government. As we begin 2015, the nation faces an impending deflationary collapse.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Christmas Eve, close calls and what counts

“I’m not afraid of death. It’s just that I don’t want to be there when it happens.” — Woody Allen

I bet almost every one of you has had at least one brush with death. I have had two. The first was at 16 and the second a year ago at 56. The changes in my life over 40 years were immense, but how I felt in the fleeting moments before living or dying were remarkably the same.

What strikes me today as I write to you on Christmas Eve is how calm I was on each occasion. Please don’t get me wrong. I am not a particularly brave man. I was easily bullied in grade school when I was the fat, asthmatic kid. And later when I took up boxing, I could barely control my nerves before a fight.

But the two times I looked down the barrel of darkness I was remarkably calm. I think it is either the gift of God or evolution to feel this way because I have spoken with a great many others who have come to the edge and managed not to slide over and they felt the same way. In fact my uncle, Dick Myers, calculated one afternoon when we were driving that he had had a dozen close death experiences. Given that he was a farmer, rancher, pilot and an absolute madman behind the wheel of a car, I was not surprised.

My first close call was on Christmas Eve 1974. There was a blizzard blowing in the late afternoon, and my mother called out to me: “John, you better clear that road. Your father will be home in an hour.”

I went to the garage dressed in my warmest winter jacket, a balaclava over my head and my green-tinted Uvex ski googles. The tractor grudgingly warmed up after a few minutes, and I backed the 35-hp Massey Ferguson out of the garage and toward the Massey snow blower. I hitched it up to the rear tow bar and attached the power take off (which is just a big nut that spins at the back axle of the tractor and runs at the same RPMS as the engine). None of that is important other than the fact that the snow blower was a big sled with turbines under it that scooped the snow off the roadway.

Back then, tractors were a dangerous proposition. They had no seat belts or roll bars. And they were especially dangerous when backing them up down a twisting gravel road in near whiteout conditions. But at 16, I didn’t think about such things. I should have because at the bottom, where our gravel road joined the highway, there was a steep embankment. I had walked that road a thousand times catching the school bus every day, so I was cocksure I knew where the edge was. I found out otherwise. The back right wheel of the Massey slipped over the edge and tossed me into such a deep snowbank that I was buried. I tried to fight my way out of the snow, knowing that the 2-ton tractor was about to fall 10 feet on top of me. Immediately, I knew I was hopelessly pinned. And suddenly, my fear went to concern for my parents. I thought, “This is really going to wreck Christmas.”

It was pure luck that before the tractor ejected me I had rammed the snow-blowing sled into a huge snowbank and it locked up with the tractor, stopping it from rolling onto me. I started digging my way out, and I managed to turn the engine off. All that was left was the utter calm of a blowing snowstorm.

My second near-death experience was last winter. I had stubbornly fought off going to the doctor for two weeks until my wife Angela noticed I was so sick I could hardly walk. She got me to the medical clinic where they rushed me by ambulance to the hospital. I was surrounded by nurses and a doctor who said my heart was in danger of going into cardiac arrest and that she had to put me to sleep and shock my heart with paddles.

I didn’t have much time to think but I remember I wasn’t scared. I was just sad that I wasn’t going to hold my first grandchild who was soon to be born. Obviously, since I am writing this to you on one of my most favorite days of the year, I managed just fine and love holding that grandbaby in my arms even as we await another on the way.

I don’t write you this to bore you with details of my near-death experiences but to tell you that death points out to us what’s important in life. At 16, it was my parents. Today, it is my grandchildren. And I don’t believe for a moment that anybody who has had a close call thinks, “I should have gotten that Porsche or purchased a bigger house.”

I share this with you on Christmas Eve because I’ve gotten old enough to have a modicum of wisdom to go with my gray hair and pot belly. On the basis of my experiences, I urge you to spend this Christmas sharing your love and not worrying about who got what.

If you feel like it, jot down a comment about your close calls. What were your thoughts when it happened?

Finally, I want to thank Bob Livingston and the good people I work with at Personal Liberty Digest™ for giving me another year to write to you. And I especially want to thank all of you for reading my Wednesday columns.

Next time, I will give you my investment forecast for 2015. But now let me wish you and yours a special Merry Christmas.

–John Myers

Invasion, occupation and torture

“I hope I’m wrong, but I am afraid that Iraq is going to turn out to be the greatest disaster in American foreign policy — worse than Vietnam, not in the number who died, but in terms of its unintended consequences and its reverberation throughout the region.” — Madeleine Albright

Quoting Madeleine Albright makes me queasy, but it shows even the progressives sometimes get it right. And as we look back upon Iraq, it can only be seen as an unmitigated disaster that has built up for a dozen years.

Following 9/11, President George W. Bush wanted Baghdad to be another Venice with the Tigress River as its picturesque canal. A dozen years later, American intervention has led to ethnic cleansing and the rise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Sunni leader of the Islamic State (ISIS), whose terrorist army has murdered tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Syria and who may yet set the Middle East ablaze.

Al-Baghdadi’s iron-fisted adversary was Nouri al-Maliki, until recently the prime minister of Iraq. Al-Maliki was not only handpicked, but he was mentored by Bush. That Bush’s efforts were all for naught became apparent when President Barack Obama pulled most U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011. That was when al-Maliki began the systematic removal of Sunnis from senior positions in the Iraqi government and military. It reached a climax over the past 18 months when hundreds of peaceful Sunni protesters were slaughtered by al-Maliki’s Shiite Iraq army. It was then Sunnis, led by top military commanders from Saddam Hussein’s Republican guard, who joined ISIS.

In August, al-Maliki was forced to resign. Yet the Iraqi civil war is bloodier than ever, and it engulfs a growing portion of the Middle East. All of it is the result of Bush listening to neocons who insisted Iraq would emulate American ideals.

The Bush neocons made a case that without an invasion America could face a nuclear attack from Iraq.

Most don’t remember the nonsense that the Bush administration was spouting in 2002, but members of the Bush cabinet continued to build a case for war because Saddam may soon have had nuclear weapons. For weeks, Sunday news programs carried their message.

In leading up to the invasion then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN: “The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

Bush gave the same warnings during the period leading up to the U.S. invasion:

  • “America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
  • “If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, he (Saddam Hussein) could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.”
  • “Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger… The first time we may be completely certain he has a — nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one”

Hardly a soul questioned the reasoning. Our government officials insisted they were telling us the facts, that the Iraqis were mixed up with Osama bin Laden and had their hands on yellowcake uranium that was going to be, or already had been used, to build a nuclear weapon.

No one pointed out that Iraq was under scrutiny from a no-fly zone. There was little mention that the skies over Iraq were swarming with American jet fighters and sophisticated surveillance planes. Nobody said that Saddam’s military was terribly degraded after Desert Storm. Yet somehow, while barely managing to hang on to power, Saddam was building a nuclear weapon to be used against the United States.

It was utter nonsense. But I found out firsthand as the editor of a very large newsletter that saying such things got me in hot water not only with my readers but my bosses, too. One of my publishers admonished me by saying you can’t call the president a liar. I was incredulous. I asked him if he meant liars such as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton. I could quickly see that argument would take me straight to the unemployment line, so I stopped writing about it in the newsletter.

The president of the United States and especially Vice President Dick Cheney swore up and down that it was true: Iraq was ruled by a leader with the ambitions and cruelty of Adolf Hitler, and he had terrible weapons that might include the bomb. To say otherwise was unpatriotic.

One of the few in the administration who suggested caution was former Secretary of State Colin Powell who famously told Bush before the invasion, “If you break it, you own it.”

In an interview Powell explained:

(It) was a simple statement of the fact that when you take out a regime and you bring down a government, you become the government. On the day that the statue came down and Saddam Hussein’s regime ended, the United States was the occupying power. We might also have been the liberating power, and we were initially seen as liberators. But we were essentially the new government until a government could be put in place. And in the second phase of this conflict, which was beginning after the statue fell, we made serious mistakes in not acting like a government. One, maintaining order. Two, keeping people from destroying their own property. Three, not having in place security forces–either ours or theirs or a combination of the two to keep order. And in the absence of order, chaos ensues.

If you want to be critical of what I say regarding mismanagement of Iraq, ask yourself this: How did America spill so much blood and treasure only to make things worse while the dictators of North Korea spent those years developing nuclear warheads and a ballistic missile delivery system? Perhaps nobody in Washington makes too big of a deal over North Korea because it lacks oil.

You can torture yourself with such thoughts. But if the CIA believes you to be an enemy of the state, its operatives can torture you. Until just recently they called it “enhanced interrogation,” but it is torture with all the crippling effects and sometimes even death.

I find it strange that in one column I quote Albright and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), but that is where I find myself. McCain went on the record Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” regarding the practices of the CIA:

I said these things are torture. They’re in violation of the Geneva Convention and the convention against torture… You can’t claim that tying someone to the floor and have them freeze to death is not torture. You can’t say 183 times someone is waterboarded.

That Republicans called him out for his comments is ridiculous. After ejecting from his Skyhawk, McCain was beaten, bayoneted and brutalized for five and a half years. I think that gives him special insight into what is torture.

Torture has been known as a poor way to gather good information. If our government doesn’t know this, it’s 70 years behind our British cousins.

A remarkable PBS “Secrets of the Dead” documentary, “Bugging Hitler’s Soldiers,” tells of how captured top Nazi officers were constantly recorded while being kept in luxurious accommodations at an English country manor. They were provided with German newspapers, radios, gourmet meals, fine wine and even sightseeing trips. During the entire time, their conversations were recorded surreptitiously. Unwittingly, the Nazi brass served up some of the best intelligence of the war, including the deteriorating state of Hitler’s mental health as well as yet unknown Nazi super weapons, including the V1 and V2 rockets.

Why this kind of intelligence is not used by the CIA is beyond me. But when it comes to Iraq, there is plenty of stupidity to go around. First, how could the neocons believe they could rebuild Iraq in America’s image? And second, why did the American public swallow bald-faced lies?

What stands out the most to me is that in killing more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians and torturing hundreds of Muslims our government has done more to recruit terrorists than bin Laden ever dreamed of.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Note: Click here to watch an excellent documentary that details more than I had room for about the timeline from the invasion of Iraq to dealing with ISIS.

Americans are mad as hell and we’re not going to take this anymore

“Americans are slow to anger, but once they do get angry, they are impossible to stop.” — Kathleen Troia McFarland, former speech writer to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger

Revolts come to a boil like water in a saucepan. At first, there are a few bubbles. And then suddenly, there’s an eruption of molecules crashing together in a furious frenzy. Vladimir Lenin said, “There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen.” It has been so from the Bronze Age through the Arab Spring.

It is not surprising that America is on a slow simmer as mass protests break out ostensibly over the way police treat blacks. That anger is in some cases reasonable for the ongoing street demonstrations, but the actions of police in 2014 are no different than they were in 1994 or 1974.

In August, USA Today reported:

Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI.

On average, there were 96 such incidents among at least 400 police killings each year that were reported to the FBI by local police. …

The reports show that 18% of the blacks killed during those seven years were under age 21, compared to 8.7% of whites.

And while the data before that period hasn’t been compiled, I suspect this rate is no higher than it was in the 1990s and probably lower than it was in the 1960s.

Race relations are the touchstone for the current outrage. But the principle reason for the outrage has more to do with the political divide within the country after four decades of ruinous economic policies. Today, there are close to 50 million Americans living in poverty who need “supplemental measures,” which is government-speak for handouts.

According to Planet Money, food stamps keep 5 million people barely above the poverty line while Social Security keeps more than half of all Americans 65 and older out of poverty.

It is not just that one-sixth of Americans are poor. More than half are not doing as well as they were a decade ago, and they aren’t doing nearly as well as the average American was doing four decades ago.

Last summer, Forbes contributor Louis Efron wrote: “Despite the significant decrease in the official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) unemployment rate, the real unemployment rate is over double that at 12.6%.”

The discrepancy comes from another polite word Washington uses, the “marginally attached,” which should be renamed the “barely surviving.” Those are Americans who want to work but have been unemployed for more than four weeks. They, along with “involuntary part-time workers” (those who want to work full time but their hours have been cut back), total almost 10 million. That is 10 million Americans who are scraping by to survive. I believe a good estimate of the number of Americans who understand that they are doing far less well than they used to do is tens of millions.

It’s not your father’s Oldsmobile

In 2009, the U.S. auto industry employed 880,000 people. That was 435,000 fewer than it employed at the beginning of the decade. The decline in the number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has continued unabated through 2014, and I know of no economist who expects that trend not to continue.

Consider that the membership in the United Auto Workers union topped out at 1.5 million in 1978 and stands today at about 400,000. Making a good living at the auto plant or any other manufacturing plant out of high school is a thing of the past. That is bad news for the ex-middle class but a bonanza for companies like Walmart, which employs 1.4 million Americans and pays the majority of them less than $12 an hour.

I, too, would be angry if my dad worked at the Oldsmobile plant back in the day and built our family a good life with a high school education while I, with a college education, lived on the edge of existence while working as a cashier. Take that anger from one person, apply it to the millions of Americans who have seen manufacturing jobs disappear over a generation and you can see why the nation could be at a tipping point.

Occupy Wall Street was the first bubble to boil

The 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall was recently celebrated. While it seemed at the time to be spontaneous combustion, those who understood history saw the initial breakup of the Soviet Union beginning in Poland in 1980. It was that tiny spark from the Solidarity movement that a decade later unchained Eastern Europe.

Future writings of the American revolt may date to the Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011. Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that while there were “bad actors” in those protests, he also realized they struck a nerve with many Americans. Romney later expressed sympathy for the movement, saying, “I look at what’s happening on Wall Street and my view is, boy, I understand how those people feel.” If a rich man like Romney could understand how the downtrodden feel, I suspect many millions of Americans understand how the downtrodden feel.

Nothing civil about civil war

This feeling of not being heard, of not mattering, of the country being run by corporations and of our elected representatives being bought and paid for by the mega rich is creating a rage that is leading people to protest. It would be naïve to believe it is solely happening because cops are killing blacks (and whites for that matter).

For his 1978 movie “Network,” Paddy Chayefsky famously wrote this line: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

What the protests tell me is that America is at an epochal shift. Race relations are a factor, but there are many others: anger at the president, anger at Congress and anger over taxation, as the divide grows between Americans who want to be productive and those who will enslave themselves to government in return for a welfare existence.

Soldier and diplomat Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb studied the lifecycle of empires. He found that typically empires last 250 years, or 10 generations, from the pioneers to the conspicuous takers.

The United States has existed for 240 years. The current political system of the U.S. may have a decade left or perhaps longer. But given the Internet, I would not count on it.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Note from the Editor: Round two of the financial meltdown is predicted to reach global proportions, already adversely affecting Greece, Spain and most of Europe. It appears less severe in the states because our banks are printing useless fiat currency. I’ve arranged for readers to get two free books—Surviving a Global Financial Crisis and Currency Collapse, plus How to Survive the Collapse of Civilization—to help you prepare for the worst. Click here for your free copies.

Personal liberty requires personal responsibility

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” — George Bernard Shaw

It is a misconception that liberty is handed down to us by government. Liberty has to be earned through individuals’ acting responsibly. Government is the thief in the night who takes away our liberty when we, as a society, act irresponsibly. It is then that government feels either the obligation or enticement to steal our personal freedoms.

Recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, have certainly had more than enough media coverage. But I wanted to write to you about something I have seen very little coverage of — not the tragic death of Michael Brown, but something far more harmful to the nation: the abdication of personal responsibility, which has been met with very little criticism by our political leaders and TV personalities.

For progressives who are still reading and who insist on blaming Brown’s death on a racist, white cop, I want you to imagine yourself as a white male. Imagine walking into a 7-Eleven and grabbing a box of cigars. Picture yourself slamming the cashier when he attempts to stop you. Envision walking down the middle of a street as a cop shows up. Then imagine telling the cop something obscene as you approach his squad car. Finally, see yourself inside the vehicle hitting the cop and grabbing his gun. Now let me ask you, can you picture something bad is likely to happen?

I have lived in both Canada and the United States, and I have a pretty good concept what would happen to me in either country if I did the acts I describe. I suspect so does almost every other person over the age of 12 living in North America. They understand that such behavior is not only unacceptable but would put their fate in the hands of a cop with all his human frailties and legitimate concerns for his safety.

A winter day when hell didn’t freeze over

Even as a kid in the country, I always knew it was in my best interest to be polite to the cops.

At 14, I had the family snowmobile wound out more than 60 mph on a flat, snow-packed stretch of highway that I thought was deserted. I found out I wasn’t alone when a Royal Canadian Mounted Police squad car pulled up beside me. I pulled safely to the side of the road, turned off the snowmobile and sat sidesaddle as the Mountie walked up to me with a sour look on his face. I don’t remember what I said, but I am sure there were lots of phrases like, “Sorry, officer,” and “Yes, I should know better,” and “It will never happen again.” After all that, the Mountie followed behind me at a pedestrian speed until I got to our farm gate and he waved me a friendly goodbye. It never occurred to me to yell obscenities at that cop. And while I probably couldn’t articulate it then, I understood that my immediate actions put my personal liberty at risk.

I didn’t have to be gifted to tell my immediate fortune. If I had smart-mouthed the Mountie, I would have been driven to the town precinct. There I would have gotten a lecture from the staff sergeant, whose best friend in the community was my school principal. I could almost guarantee a short stay in a cell as the phone call I always dreaded would be placed — the one to my father, the man who had promised me that if I messed up as a teenager I would be going to a boarding school 700 miles away in Brandon, Manitoba.

So I stayed out of trouble and went to the university I wanted to attend. And a few years later, I was trying to understand the likes of Immanuel Kant and other philosophers who argued that man innately understands right from wrong.

In the 1970s, John Rawls expanded on Kant in his “A Theory of Justice.” Rawls said that all humans have the capacity to make the correct impartial judgments. The fact that this rarely happens is not a flaw of humanity but of society or a subgroup of society.

What I have seen in the aftermath of Ferguson is that progressive liberals have largely held African-Americans harmless. Network media such as MSNBC and CNN, along with civil rights activists such as Al Sharpton, have placed all the guilt for Brown’s death and the resulting riots at the feet of former police officer Darren Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department. This is mass disregard for the fact that Wilson was not indicted by a grand jury for any crime. In fact, it was stated by an African-American guest being interviewed last week on CNN by anchor Don Lemon that Wilson was 100 percent responsible for Brown’s death. For that to be true, Wilson would have had to walk into Brown’s house and execute him. That is not what happened.

Even more interesting to me is the case of Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, calling in part for the crowd gathered to “burn this bitch down.” It was Head’s repeated urgings for violence that sparked the first wave of riots in Ferguson that night.

Yet Head’s actions have been explained away by his wife, many in the black community and white progressives who argue that they were the words of a man in deep pain who was practicing his 1st Amendment right.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that Head did not have that right because it has laid down exceptions to free speech. Restrictions include words used to create an expected reaction by others or speech used to evoke incitement of a crime.

Authorities are investigating whether Head intended to incite a riot when he uttered those words. But chances are he will not face a grand jury for his rant. And while his speech is clearly not protected, he is protected by the special circumstances of his skin color and the racial volatility that has been exacerbated by black community leaders and cable network news. If such exemptions continue, it will lead to only more government intervention and less personal liberty for all Americans.

Such truths are encapsulated in “Liberty and Responsibility: Inseparable Ideals,” an article by Max More published in July 1996 by The Freeman. More explains:

The survival of liberty requires personal responsibility. Without this connection our political institutions become a means for the shifting of blame, for compelling others to fix our problems, and for living off the efforts of others. As responsibility declines, the political system grows increasingly oppressive and burdensome. Politicians pass more laws telling people what to do and how to do it. Tax-funded handouts expand to support those who do not want to produce.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

American oil will restore American greatness

In the past two weeks, the imperial president, Barack Obama, has delivered two edicts that stretch the mind of a person like me who was taught right and wrong half a century ago. On the one hand, Obama declared he would likely veto the Keystone XL pipeline even after the House passed it and before the Senate fell just one vote short. Five days later, Obama declared he would act without Congress and provide amnesty for up to 5 million Mexican illegal aliens.

I’ve been following the efforts made by the planners of the Keystone XL pipeline on both sides of the border for six years as they were strung along by Obama. The architects of the plan to send oil through the United States from Canada to refineries in the Gulf were deliberate and transparent. They crossed every “t” and they dotted every “i”. In the end, it did them no good.

On the other hand, Mexicans who, by hook or by crook, illegally snuck into the United States by the millions have been rewarded for their surreptitious actions. Obama has declared that America will take them in. As for the millions of Mexican suckers who waited in line for their legal turn to come to America, tough luck.

That got me to thinking — and for this I ask you to suspend disbelief for a moment — what if the Mexicans granted amnesty had waited their turn while the Keystone planners drilled secretly under American soil and just last week Obama discovered that the pipeline had not only been built without anyone’s knowledge but the spigots were ready to be turned on? What if those jobs, whether they be 50 or 5,000 were at hand and the Keystone XL pipeline was set to deliver?

Of course, that’s a ridiculous premise. You can’t tunnel under a country. But you can tunnel under a country’s border. And when you do that, you can get a big fat reward: amnesty! Big government rewards the cheats and punishes the true.

Plenty to be thankful for

I have good news this Thanksgiving. America needs neither the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada nor all those illegal Mexicans. America needs a smaller less intrusive government and no more imperial presidents.

That’s because America is the second-richest resource nation in the world. All it takes is that we the people wake up wanting less government and fewer dictates from presidents. When we do that, we won’t have to worry about being taken advantage of by Mexican illegals, Canadian pipeline companies or our Muslim adversaries.

That is a fact because of our enormous resource wealth across our giant land mass that is home to millions of legal, industrious Americans who have not been brainwashed by the progressive left, those who insist on renewable energy and declare that Muslims have no ulterior motives and only want peace.

Those who proclaim such are the defeatists, the Jimmy Carters and the Neville Chamberlains who want us to elect another imperial president who will take away any responsibility we have for our own free will. They are quite happy with presidents like Obama and George W. Bush who coddle Mexicans and apologize to Islam because of their oil. Instead, we need a president who declares the United States is independent of Arab oil and who, without breakthrough technologies in clean energy, damns the Greens and their taxation schemes.

America’s resource riches

Two years ago, 24/7 Wall St. did a detailed study of the 10 richest natural resource nations on Earth. The financial news site used a country’s total reserves at the then-market value of their resources. It calculated the total value of the proven reserves of 10 of the most valuable resources by country, which included oil, natural gas, coal, timber, gold, silver, copper, uranium, iron ore and phosphate.

Ahead of China, Canada, Saudi Arabia and second only to Russia was the United States. The report estimated that the U.S. has $45 trillion in resource assets and concluded:

The U.S. has 31.2% of the world’s proved coal reserves. Worth an estimated $30 trillion, this is by far the most valuable supply of any nation on earth. There is also 750 million forested acres in the country, which are worth nearly $11 trillion. Timber and coal combined are worth roughly 89% of the country’s total natural resource value. The U.S. is also in the top five nations globally for copper, gold and natural gas.

The U.S. has more than $10 trillion more in natural resource assets than does Saudi Arabia and $12 trillion dollars more than does Canada. As a result, our president shouldn’t be bowing down to anyone.

We know for a fact Obama doesn’t bow to Canada. But his crouching before the king of Saudi Arabia is perplexing and disturbing because it is not needed.

As of today, we could tell Saudi Arabia to take its oil and its radical Wasabi religion and shove it! For a spell, we might need some other imports — but not for long. That is because for the first time since the Nixon administration we are no longer dependent upon foreign oil. New recovery technologies such as horizontal drilling, 3-D mapping and fracking have made the United States once again the world’s oil kingpins. If we can break the grip of the Greens and explore Alaska’s rich petroleum reservoirs, the United States has the opportunity to become a major oil exporter.

The turnaround in U.S. barrels of oil produced has been mesmerizing, and I say this as a writer who two decades ago declared that America could become a petroleum cripple.

Daniel Yergin, the author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power” wrote:

For 10 years, the defining factor in the oil market was the growth of China and Chinese oil demand. Now the defining factor is the astonishing growth of U.S. oil production.

Last summer, Bloomberg wrote this headline: “U.S. Seen as Biggest Oil Producer After Overtaking Saudi Arabia.”

The article reported that the United States was producing more than 11 million barrels per day in the first quarter of 2014 and there are more gushers in America’s future. Bloomberg reported that, according to the IEA, a Paris-based adviser, U.S. oil output will surge past 13 million barrels per day by 2019.

So I will borrow a line from a popular war movie, “Apocalypse Now.” It is in the fog of combat when Col. Bill Kilgore is inanely ordering his men to coordinate an attack on a Vietnamese village. In his air cavalry hat and scarf, he declares this after American jets drop napalm on the enemy: “The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like… victory. Someday this war’s gonna end.”

Our ongoing war with Islam, largely over their oil, can be won soon. That is because American oil is being easily pumped from our domestic oilfields and refined into cheaper and cheaper gasoline. To me that smells like victory!

Wishing you and yours a joyous Thanksgiving,

–John Myers

Obama aims to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline even as ISIS targets Saudi oil

“‘Canadian oil’ offers little to nothing for average Americans.” —’s summation of President Barack Obama’s statement last Friday

The House approved legislation for the Keystone XL Pipeline Friday. And although the Senate voted it down on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell  promised that Keystone will be “an early item on the agenda in the next Congress.” But even if both houses in Congress ultimately pass the legislation, President Obama has indicated that he will veto the pipeline.

Obama spoke on the subject last Friday: “Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.”

Interesting in that Obama said “their” oil pumped through “our” land. He made it sound like an oil invasion by a Canadian vanguard. Yet Obama is leaving out a few things.

The U.S. and Canada already have pipelines measuring tens of thousands of miles that date back decades and crisscross the continent. Those pipelines have allowed Canada to be the No. 1 petroleum supplier to the United States, delivering 3 million barrels of crude per day, or three times more oil than the U.S imports from Saudi Arabia. Canadian pipelines have made petroleum more affordable, safer and easier to transport to American industry and consumers.

It would seem Obama skipped economics 101. There they teach that oil is a global commodity. More oil sloshing around the world — any part of the world — means cheaper gasoline for American drivers.

Obama’s rejection of Keystone is especially puzzling when you consider that Canada is a democratic country that for seven decades has been safely engineering and operating pipelines.

The world’s strongest alliance

The last shot fired in anger between Canada and the United States was 200 years ago. America’s second-largest source of crude comes from Saudi Arabia, which provided most of the money and men responsible for 9/11. And it was Saudi Arabia that launched two oil embargoes against the United States and Canada in the 1970s.

Saudi oil does not provide many jobs for Americans, whereas the Keystone XL Pipeline, if it ever gets past the president, will provide thousands of good-paying jobs added to the tens of thousands of jobs that Americans already have in the Canadian oil patch.

Then there are these facts:

  • The U.S. and Canada have peacefully shared a 4,000-mile border.
  • And in every major war over the past century, soldiers from both sides have fought and died side by side.
  • Canada sheltered Americas during the Iran hostage crisis.
  • And weeks ago, Canada committed fighter jets to help the United States attack Islamic State (ISIS) strongholds.
  • Finally, Canada and America are the world’s two largest trading partners. In the past 25 years, the two-way trade in goods and services between the countries has risen 300 percent. Canada is far and away the single largest buyer of American goods, with Canadian purchases totaling more than $300 million per year — more than the combined purchases of China, Japan, Germany and the U.K. An estimated 9 million U.S jobs depend on trade and investment with Canada.

It boils down to this: If the American homeland were attacked, Canadians would die by the tens of thousands to defend it. The flip side is that Saudis may help finance the invasion.

Obama gets an ‘F’ when it comes to foreign relations

For all his Ivy League education, Obama never seemed to learn the Latin phrase “quid pro quo.” It means a favor for a favor. But Obama doesn’t do favors, not in politics or diplomacy. It was not surprising then that The Wall Street Journal wrote this about Obama and his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline last Friday:

Sometimes we wonder if President Obama has even the vaguest idea how a private economy works. The latest reason to doubt came Friday in Burma, where Mr. Obama was asked at a press conference about the Keystone XL pipeline, which has been waiting for approval for the length of his Presidency. The pipeline would allow oil to flow from Canada all the way to the Gulf Coast.

In off-the-cuff remarks, Mr. Obama managed to insult our great northern neighbors while suggesting that the project would be no help to U.S. workers or consumers.

The president has said he will approve the Keystone XL pipeline only if it proves to be in the strategic interest of the United States. The president seems to forget strategic interests change, sometimes in a heartbeat.

Canadian oil from the Keystone XL pipeline would create several thousands of jobs and would provide much needed crude for U.S. refineries.

In the event of an energy crisis, Keystone crude would be diverted to American consumers. Such a crisis could result from another Arab oil embargo, another Middle Eastern war or the implosion of Iraq or, worse, Saudi Arabia. Under those circumstances, the Keystone XL pipeline would act as a safety net that is all the more compelling because of ISIS.

In September, Claude Salhani of wrote “ISIS’s Ultimate Goal: Saudi Arabia’s Oil Wells,” in which he said:

For the terrorist group known as the Islamic State, Syria and Iraq were a good place to start their campaign, but in order to survive and prosper it knew from the outset that it had no choice but to set its sights on the ultimate prize: the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

Obama must understand that ISIS is not rolling up olive groves and goat herds; it is paying its army with captured petroleum. The really big game is Saudi Arabia’s elephant oil fields.

ISIS knows that if it controls Saudi oil, it can dictate the price of crude oil around the world. As a bonus, ISIS would be the curator of two of the most holy shrines of Islam, Mecca and Medina. Such a presence would win tens of thousands of jihadists to their radical cause.

It is too bad Obama doesn’t better explain his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. If one didn’t know better, one might think that Obama is purposefully reckless with regard to energy and national security.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Too late to celebrate: America crossed the Rubicon decades ago

Like the first knife-thrust into Julius Caesar, the awful era of President Barack Obama came to a crashing end last week with Republican victories in the House and Senate. But the ongoing celebration over Obama’s political death is utter nonsense.

In ancient Rome the body politic and the spirit of liberty came to a crashing end when Caesar led his army across the Rubicon River to Rome. It was, in fact, the climax because Rome had already suffered decades of decadence. That Marcus Junius Brutus and much of the Roman Senate murdered him didn’t change Rome’s trajectory towards ruin, although it was said to be well celebrated. What the conspirators didn’t understand was that Rome was already imploding.

Liberty was slipping away long before Caesar and would not be reimagined by man for 1,000 years with the birth of the Renaissance. That America would be the nation to fully reap the libertarian ideals espoused and planted perfectly in 17th century France is a cruel irony in the 21st century where American presidents and Congress have stripped away any veneer of privacy or any semblance of personal liberty. In fact, it began decades before the 2008 election of Obama.

I loathe the presidency of Obama; but I also loathed the presidency of his predecessor, George W. Bush, the Republican who began National Security Agency spying on and illegal wiretapping of American citizens. The Bush administration ran up record federal debts, began a war in Iraq over lies about weapons of mass destruction and helped spur the worst financial meltdown since 1929.

Yet the roots of that meltdown date back to the Clinton administration, which deregulated investment markets with derivatives, thus creating a global casino wherein the doormen and waitresses were on the hook for trillions of dollars in bets that went bad.

We know that no one in the Clinton administration understood derivatives because nobody — and I mean no single individual — fully understands them. They are as Richard Feynman, the late Cal Tech Nobel laureate, once described physics: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.”

So this current economic and debt morass can be dated back three presidencies to Clinton. But the man in the Oval Office before Clinton, George H.W. Bush was no peach either. Forget the “Read my lips, no new taxes” promise that he broke. The real tax on Americans is fear, and it is because of his administration’s incursion into the Middle East to stop Iraq’s Republican Guard from bayonetting Kuwaiti babies in incubators. His administration knew full well that was an outright lie.

In truth, the George H.W. Bush administration had at first given President Saddam Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait because of contested oil reserves. It is interesting that still today many people claim that Saddam had a legitimate claim on them.

While the ashes of the Iraqi army had to be scooped up with snow shovels, America accomplished its goal of providing freedom and liberty for Kuwait. It seems the word “liberty” can mean pretty much anything, especially if you can apply it to the Middle East and countries like Kuwait.

Kuwait’s gain turned out to be Saudi Arabia’s loss. Bowing to American pressure to put giant military bases on kingdom soil deeply angered the clerics — especially the important ones in the Muslim world. You know what you get if you make 10,000 clerics mad? You get a jihad.

Oh, well. Who cares if a few Hajjis don’t like us, right? Yet the truth 25 years later is that we are rightfully worried because tens of millions of Muslims want to see Western democracies disappear.

Such is the case because that Rubicon was crossed in a few hours by one man, Osama bin Laden. With few assets and even fewer soldiers, he terrorized America and took our political leaders on a mission that may eventually destroy the Constitution.

Millions still trust the way children do

I was taught that protecting the Constitution was the most important goal of any elected representative. Not so. Protecting the homeland from real or imagined threats trumps all. Obama said so in June 2013 at a press conference in California.

Here is part of his response to a question he took on blanket spying. (Yes, spying is such an ugly word; but I cannot think of another.)

When I came into this office, I made two commitments that are more important than any other.

No. 1: to keep the American people safe. And No. 2: to uphold the Constitution and constitutional rights to privacy and to civil liberties.

Is it me, or did he just get the order of his obligations wrong? I thought the No. 1 obligation was to uphold the Constitution.

But what Obama said next is even more shocking:

In the abstract you can complain about Big Brother and how this is a potential program run amok…

You can complain about Big Brother? Complain!? Complain is what I did last week when Canadian Tire mounted the wrong winter tires on my car. Take away the liberties I am guaranteed as an American, plus the liberties of family, friends and readers, and I am way past complaining.

That said, Obama is the last in a long line of presidents who have erased much hope within me of a better future.

And, Mr. President, I hope I am not being too damned “abstract” for you, but there is a big difference between countries that don’t have Big Brother and countries that do. It is in magnitude the difference between the America my grandfather, Amil Myers, lived in compared to the Kenya where your grandfather, Onyango Obama, lived.

As for protecting Americans, what Obama is saying is tantamount to locking your kids up in the basement because a child molester might get them on the street. Small children probably wouldn’t argue against such treatment. They would probably be too afraid of the molester. And millions upon millions of American’s don’t much argue against it either.

Do we need what the NSA calls “The Program” to keep us safe? Sure, go ahead. The logic typically runs as this: They can see and hear whatever I write and say because I am not doing anything illegal.

The de-evolution of America

It isn’t illegal now, but how about in the future? How legal will your life be 20 years from now? Nobody knows. Nobody has ever known. Even the Founding Fathers dared not hazard a guess. That is why we have our Constitution. But more than 200 years later, not only does the technology exist but it can be used against us and with almost the full support of Congress.

My big fear is that if you believe that we are going to revert back to less government and a return of liberties because of one election like we had last week, you are going to be bitterly disappointed.

It seems to me that watching the federal government evolve is like compressing 500 million years of evolution of the Tyrannosaurus Rex into a century. Eons before its final incarnation, T-Rex would have been no bigger and probably not more dangerous than a chicken. But the fates for T-Rex were set. And so, too, may be America’s, unless we are prepared to engage in real protest (nonviolent revolt) and demand real change.

The controversial evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins once remarked that changes in living organisms involve incredibly long periods of time. He then told a story I could relate to, that people come to an age where they no longer consider themselves middle-aged but rather old. He added this is not a sudden awakening, that nobody goes to bed one night feeling middle-aged and wakes up in the morning feeling like an old person.

The de-evolution of the United States is the same way. There is no exact date on when the Rubicon crossing commenced and liberty became expendable.

Thus, the initial crossing of the Rubicon in America may have begun with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. I believe it was underway with President Lyndon Johnson and the crossing was greatly accelerated by President Richard Nixon, not so much because of the criminal nature of his administration but in his full removal of the dollar from the gold standard. That left the U.S. Treasury free to print money carte blanche. And not one president since has turned his back on this political opportunity.

So I will make a deal with my critics. If someday a newly elected Congress and a future president decide to again back the dollar with gold, I will take back all that I have written here and pronounce that America is, as President Ronald Reagan declared, “that shining city on a hill.”

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Pride comes before the fall

“I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.” — Apple CEO Tim Cook, October 2014

The headline above is borrowed from Proverbs 16:18, so I take no pride in having written it. Yet pride has been discussed much this past week, mostly gay pride because of Tim Cook’s statement about something very personal. It got me to thinking: What can I be really prideful of or, more importantly, why are some people so prideful for no other reason than they are simply different?

Let’s start with superfluous, and what could be wasted, pride that I harbor. I won a footrace once and was proud of that until the next week, when at the regionals I finished second last. I was named captain of our junior varsity football team that then went on to lose every game that season. Also, I graduated from an OK university but have an older brother with three degrees with distinction, all from better universities. I am a proud father and even a proud grandfather. It is such pride as this that is so universal I probably share it with almost a billion men on the planet.

I never invented anything, I never joined the army and the closest I came to combat was watching CBS’s Dan Rather cover the Vietnam War. Except for getting a kitten out of a tree, I’ve never saved a life. I have always taken pride in my work; but taking pride in one’s vocation, family and heritage is different than being prideful. Among those who are prideful are the braggarts in the investment arena, where people shine because they harp on every winner they ever called but have amnesia over their many blunders.

I take pride in being an American — far more because of what America used to represent half a century ago than what it represents today. We are at a point in time where the nation has $17 trillion in federal debt; we occupy one country and will likely become involved in combat in two other countries; and it’s very possible an economic recession may arrive soon.

In the end, I want to believe America eventually does the right thing. But being a proud American is different from the “self-pride” that brims up in minority groups, especially those that feel they have been wronged. There is gay pride, black pride, white pride. You name a group that feels disconnected from the mainstream, and you will find people “belong” to it with pride.

My gay pride ride

The subtitle above is just a tease. The only time I come out of the closet is when I have grabbed some clean clothes. But I was driving downtown a year ago and was caught in the city’s gay pride parade. Ahead of me in the heart of downtown Calgary was a pink Cadillac convertible bedecked with men in dresses and lingerie that were far too revealing for even attractive women to be wearing in public. One looked like a combination of Lucille Ball and Ricky Ricardo. They had fixed a giant banner to the back bumper that read: “CELEBRATING GAY PRIDE!”

I am a Libertarian. You will never find me go off on a rant on homosexuals because of how they express their sexuality behind closed doors. I will argue for the rights of all consenting adults to do whatever they wish with a modicum of discretion, just as we straight teenage boys had to act when we introduced a girl who was a close friend to our parents. That said, I couldn’t stop gawking at the men acting shamelessly. I laughed and thought how proud their mothers must be.

But based on brains, ability and personal wealth, I have been trumped on my Victorian-like dismissal of what gay pride means. Cook, no less than the CEO of Apple and the man at the helm of one of the most innovative companies in the world, has declared he is gay and damn proud of it. Given all the credits that must fill his resume, this would hardly make it on most people’s list — especially since being gay or straight is something most people acknowledge as a non-choice but rather the way we are born.

My question is this: If the gay lobby and the medical community are correct and people are born to fall in love with people of the same sex, why then are they proud? I was born to fall in love with people of the opposite sex. So random is that event in which I had zero influence that I have more pride regarding that footrace I won as a kid than I do regarding my being a heterosexual.

Pride: The vilest of the seven deadly sins

It was pride that created Satan, who had once been God’s greatest creation. And to this day, not much good comes from pride, especially pride stemming from a group that creates separateness from other members of society. You see it with a great many groups, and it indicates a fracturing of America.

People used to take pride in their accomplishments and not in themselves. I think the men and women who built America’s industrial pre-eminence must have felt a lot of pride, not perhaps so much in what they did as individuals but rather with what they helped build with others. It was a collective pride, not an individual pride.

What is America creating these days besides more debt and more fiat dollars? It is hard to be proud of only that. Perhaps that is why so many people fill up with a false pride, which only further divides the nation and forces America to accumulate ever greater debts and print ever more money. And around it goes until there is nothing at all left to be proud of.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

The Islamic evil that is ISIS was spawned in Saudi Arabia

Cam Cardow, Cagle Cartoons

“Saudi Arabia is the most extreme fundamentalist state in the world. It’s also a missionary state. It’s expending huge efforts — has been for many years — to disseminate its extremist Wahhabi-Salafi version of Islam, all with U.S. backing.” — Noam Chomsky

تظهر يديك! is Arabic for “Show your hands!” I heard it from two giant bodyguards standing only inches away from my father and me. They yelled it while gesturing with submachine guns in hand, which is a more effective language tool than anything you get from “Hooked on Ebonics.”

It happened when the elevator door opened to the penthouse in a hotel in Geneva after my dad had gumshoed our way into an OPEC meeting in the 1980s.

My father wanted to get the scoop on why Saudi Arabia was driving the price of oil down from an OPEC benchmark price of more than $35 per barrel to less than $11. He understood that Saudi Arabia was the world’s swing producer and that with enough convincing by its closest ally in the world, the United States, the Saudis could pretty much do anything they wanted when it came to the price of crude. That was because Saudi Arabia could pump up to 14 million barrels per day and controlled nearly one-third of the world’s oil reserves. What my father had forgotten from his trips to Saudi Arabia in the 1960s was how ruthless the House of Saud could be, especially when it came to dealing with infidels and interlopers.

Looking back, that seems incredulous because as an oil publisher and guest of Crown Prince Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in the early 1960s, my dad was treated to a weekend of entertainment that included public beheadings. Whether or not there was an implicit message for Western petroleum producers I can’t even hazard a guess. What I know is that a close friend of mine who has been to Saudi Arabia was also invited to such a spectacle.

According to broadcast news, only ISIS is evil

Last week, the news media finally carried a couple of stories about the brutality inside Saudi Arabia. Newsweek wrote this headline, “When It Comes to Beheadings, ISIS Has Nothing Over Saudi Arabia.” From the story:

The escalation of the war against the Islamic State was triggered by widespread revulsion at the gruesome beheading of two American journalists, relayed on YouTube. Since then, two British aid workers have met a similar grisly fate. And another American has been named as next in line by his terrorist captors.

Yet, for all the outrage these executions have engendered the world over, decapitations are routine in Saudi Arabia, America’s closest Arab ally, for crimes including political dissent—and the international press hardly seems to notice. In fact, since January, 59 people have had their heads lopped off in the kingdom, where “punishment by the sword” has been practiced for centuries.

So why is Anderson Cooper from CNN not over there covering this story? One reason may be that he has come out as a homosexual. And in Saudi Arabia they give gays the chop! Oh, yes, Connie Chung, the Saudi religious police also beat women who drive cars, ride bicycles or are out in public unattended by their male guardians.

Yet the gay/feminist lobby and all the liberals say nary a word about Saudi Arabia. That’s because people like President Barack Obama, whether he is a Muslim or not, bow to King Abdullah.

Truth is not much has changed in Saudi Arabia when it comes to their barbaric ways for the past half century. And if you think about it, not much has changed since the Prophet Muhammad, a man who had close relationships with young boys half a millennium ago. The big differences are the result of the discovery of massive oil reserves, which has created incredible riches. And all of that took off when the United States made a deal with the Saudi devils in 1945.

That blood oath made by the U.S. has allowed America access to massive Saudi oil fields and fueled the denial of them to other great powers. It is still a bedrock deal today regardless of what the House of Saud does, including their full-fledged backing of the most barbaric terrorists in the world.

Thus, Saudi money is spilling over to the Islamic State (ISIS); and some of those petrodollars are being funneled from the United States and its unmitigated faith in the House of Saud. Yes, your taxpayer money is going to the very groups that want to kill you.

And if you think ISIS is bad, the group doesn’t carry a candle to the House of Saud when it comes to beheadings or other kinds of violence.

You can search YouTube for “Saudi Arabia beheadings” and see for yourself; but having done so myself, I would strongly recommend against it. Growing up in the country, I didn’t much like it when my dad took the hatchet to the chickens; and as you can imagine, that pales in comparison to seeing it happen to a human.

Yet beheadings are high times in Riyadh, spectacles with crowds you might imagine for a really big grudge match under the Friday night football lights. I don’t know if popcorn is served; but, of course, beer is off-limits. That would go against the will of Allah.

According to Newsweek: “People will gather to watch you die. They are the ‘only form of public entertainment’ in Saudi Arabia, aside from football matches.”

And while Allah may prohibit alcohol and women in public without a shower-curtain draped over their heads, there doesn’t seem to be much else that upsets the Muslim god and his sadistic prophet. Devotees, backed by their religious police, are free to murder, maim and collect all the arms and oil revenues they can — most of them provided by Uncle Sam. And while Saudi Arabia will kill homosexuals, young men in Saudi Arabia are sequestered from women and, thus, privately have sexual relations constantly with each other — but only in private.

Sleep soundly, Hollywood; the Saudis only kill people, not ducks

Movie stars have been making pilgrimages to Alberta over climate change. They come to Alberta to make movies and to protest dirty oil sands where hundreds or even thousands of ducks have been soaked in oil. No doubt, big stars like environmentalists Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo have discussed this, perhaps over pomegranate duck dinner. I have a suggestion for these two and other big stars. Try flying your Gulfstream jets into Saudi Arabia and carry a banner to one of the weekly beheadings. That way, you can sacrifice yourself for a good cause — that being we don’t have to hear your hypocritical arguments added to the liberal choir that is always fussing that carbon is being spilled into the atmosphere but couldn’t give a rat’s rear end about blood flowing throughout that desolate desert where there is no pity, no morality beyond the razor’s edge of a Saudi sword. And before one of you liberal critics attacks me over this, ask yourself this: When was the last time the Canadian government beheaded somebody, and when was the last time you ate duck?

Will ISIS be the future rulers of Saudi Arabia?

Washington is clamoring because the main goal of ISIS is the rich oil fields of Saudi Arabia. ISIS has already flanked this corrupt and despicable regime, and our government will send your sons and daughters to die for Saudi oil. You can bet on it. But in the end is ISIS, the devil we don’t know, any worse than the House of Saud, the devil we do know? Neither wants to drill for petroleum in the United States or run a pipeline from Canada. That is an evil that Obama and most of Congress cannot accept.

So the oil keeps flowing, the blood keeps spilling and dollars roll in like a tidal wave to one of the most baseless, evil nations in the world. Thank you, Al Gore!

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

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.


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