Presidential conspiracy in the US

As a non-American, looking in from the outside, I detect a conspiracy surrounding President Obama.

Much as I dislike the individual and believe he is dangerous for both the USA and the free world, this isn't a conspiracy led by the former community organizer - at least I don't think it is, that's the trouble with conspiracies, you just never know!

No this is about what has happened to the American media.  Have they been so infiltrated by socialists that none have the courage to see that the emperor has no clothes?

Consider:

Benghazi September 11, 2012 - the American consulate is stormed by an armed and intent on murder mob of Islamist fanatics.  Those inside call for help.  US  military forces are available but are ordered to stand-down.  The commanding general balks at this order and is relieved of command.  Four American citizens are brutally abused, including it is said, sexually, and murdered.  One of the four is the US Ambassador to Libya.

The IRS is found to be targeting right of centre groups, and their members, such as the Tea Party.  Initiating tax audits of these people and clearly on the grounds of their political opinions.  In the ensuing investigation, news of profligate spending and waste, by the IRS, surfaces.

John Kerry and President Obama hail a temporary agreement with Iran, as a victory. This agreement allegedly requires Iran to stop uranium enrichment but post the announcements, it seems that some of the Iranian nuclear facilities are not included.  What is included though is that sanctions are lifted on $8 billion that was previously frozen.  So Iran gets what it wants - money and other relief from sanctions that were hurting (as was intended) - and they don't have to actually give-up anything for it!

And then there is Obamacare.  Some say it should be properly called the Affordable Care Act but since it isn't affordable, there is no additional care, it can be seen to be an act, as many conservative commentators have noted.

One of the things that the USA boasts about, is it's technological prowess.  No, really!  So, think about that.  President Obama gave the 'techies' and 'geeks' three years to come up with a website and registration system.   They didn't just fail, they failed abysmally.  Three years and $100s Million and it simply didn't work - and by all accounts still doesn't.  That wouldn't be a problem though because Obama said people could keep their old policies and such, except.....  they can't.  People would not see premium increases or be forced into this or that but...... they are!

There are other instances, such as the NSA spying on Americans, reading their e-mails and listening into their phone calls, as well as spying on supposed allies  (see here:  http://bit.ly/1fny5ka )  and the shameful shutdown of WWII memorials during the government shutdown but you should have the picture by now.

So, how does this super-teflon coated President get away with it?  The answer is because the main stream media is blind, deaf and dumb.  Even now, as some Democrats try to distance themselves from the train wreck that is Obamacare, the media still pushes the 'party line' from the White House.  Okay, you would expect Claire Shipman, ABC senior correspondent, to steer clear of embarrassing the White House Press Secretary, she is, after all, married to the same Jay Carney but what of the rest of the press corps?  Where are the putative Woodwards and Bernsteins?  Or do they only come out against Republicans?

I don't believe that Twitter and other social media is ready to replace the MSM but where else can an American go to hear something that isn't what amounts to propaganda from President Obama?   What has made the media, that were always so savagely anti- George Bush, now so toothless and un-enquiring?  Remember the outright lies put out by the media about Obama's predecessor?  Those are easier to recall than the half-hearted eventual apologies or retractions.

No the Left, and take it from one that has suffered under the yoke of UK socialism, make no mistake,  Obama is a true Socialist and he has fellow 'card-carriers' throughout the media.  The Democrats and the MSM are so in bed together (sometimes literally) that even the complete 'green' bilge spouted by Al Gore goes unchallenged as does his oh so blatant, hypocrisy.

So here's a prediction.  Watch, read and listen to the media in the coming weeks if you like or just know now, that the following headlines will provide adequate coverage of the next round of budget discussions.  'GOP, fearing Tea Party extremists, obstructs resolution of budget issues.'  or 'President Obama stands firm on budget in face of anti-progressive elements in division riven GOP'

2014 is just around the corner and presents Americans with an opportunity to start to take back their country.  Know though that this will be a very hard process.  The socialists move one yard to the left and then the 'right' manage to move one foot back to the right but America is still two foot further to the left, after this dance.  It's time for the 'right' to talk direct to the people and bypass the biased MSM and to move two or more yards to the right - incremental steps to sanity leaves a country too long in a state of madness.

Finally, consider that you won't read anything like this in the American media so make sure that you protect the freedom that Twitter allows us. 

The American idea of friendship?

I don't have a Webster's dictionary to hand but would struggle to believe the definition of friendship includes anything like the way the current US administration (and recent former ones!) is treating its friends and allies.

I am not a gambling man but I would bet the equity I have in my house, that Angela Merkel is not plotting the overthrow of Western civilization and its replacement with a Sharia compliant caliphate,  with Al Qaeda.  Does anybody really think that Francois Hollande has the time for such plotting?  Thinking up more and more daft taxes to impose on his benighted citizens takes up so much time, there is too little left for proper plotting.

And yet......  If the leaks from Edward Snowden are to be believed, then that is what the folks in the US Administration think is happening.  Somehow these people have got it into their heads that the 'war on terror' requires them to spy on whomever they choose.  Prime Minister of Spain?  You bet! UN Secretary General? Of course!  Millions of Americans? For sure!  

How do I know that is what they're thinking?  Well how else can the USA possibly justify spying on its friends?  The only justifiable reason to spy on Merkel would be to get hold of her Sauerkraut recipe, which is said to produce a result that is only surpassed by her Lebkuchen one (Lidl and Aldi both follow this, trust me, but don't ask me how I know!) 

Those of us, of a certain age, remember the 'cold war'.  Amongst us intelligent ones (as opposed to the fellow travelers), we always understood that certain actions, let's call them spying, would be undertaken on our behalf, to protect us.  I am sure that we also suspected (and condoned) the fact that sometimes our enemies - foreign or domestic - might be legitimate targets and even that they could end-up being killed by our security services.  It was a war and as such casualties are inevitable. 

Part of the acceptance came from a belief that our system was better than theirs.  That we had freedoms that were worth protecting and fighting for and that sometimes playing a little dirty was required and therefore acceptable. 

Now though our 'system' is coming to look a whole lot like the systems of control that we, in the West, fought against.  In the UK, we have a Conservative-led coalition (or at least on paper, Conservative-led) seeking to impose severe restraints on press freedom.  From the USA we have widespread snooping on foreigner's mail and phone calls - OK to some US readers that might be acceptable - they're foreigners, after all - but we also have US citizens having their own mail and phone calls snooped on.  In the USA you don't have the Stasi on street corners asking you for your papers, but you do have drones flying overhead and you being watched by people in darkened rooms, simply because they can.

And that really is it.  The NSA and it's co-conspirator, the British GCHQ, do all of this snooping because they have the technology to do so.  They are boys with toys and have to use them.  They are the kid that gets a remote controlled helicopter for his birthday and then has to use it to 'buzz' his neighbour's house simply because he has this new toy and since his dad got it for him, he is going to make sure his son's 'constitutional right' to fly the toy are protected.

We are told that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations are really smart and getting smarter and more sophisticated.  While many of their weapons are crude - suicide bombs, for example - they are an implacable and intelligent enemy.  So, how many of them, do you think, are getting on their cell phones and directing their 'martyrs' to the next atrocity or sending e-mails detailing their upcoming plans?  I suspect that because these terrorists are well aware of the counter-measures used by the West, such as snooping, then they resort to old-fashioned methods of communication like a whispered conversation in a crowded street or behind locked doors.  

And then there is the hypocrisy.  Remember how the USA was enraged when it discovered that its erstwhile allies, the Israelis, were spying on it?  I am sure that at the time, there would have been Senators and Representatives and other 'nodding heads' condemning this as being unfriendly, 'these are not the actions, we, Americans would expect of a nation that we consider, a friend' etc..

Going back to those domestic drones for a moment, consider this.  One of America's contributions to the English language is the term 'going postal' - where someone becomes so deranged at slights, real or imagined, that they just load-up on guns and ammo and go to the scene of their humiliation and start killing all and sundry.   Think though about those guys in the darkened rooms, looking at these monitors.  Think about them just maybe 'losing it'.  That cheerleader that said no, when she was asked to the prom?  The number plate of her car can be read from 25,000 feet.  That 'jock' who always gave lesser beings and nerds a wedgie?  His cell phone can be tracked, wherever he is.  And hey, the guy in the darkened room has rapid fire weapons and a hellfire missile or two.   But Americans have nothing to fear.  It couldn't happen in America right?  There are controls on all this kind of stuff, aren't there?

 Bottom line is that friends don't spy on friends.  That for freedom to have any meaning, a government shouldn't be spying on it's own people.  Terrorism isn't just about bombs and assassinations - it is also about creating a climate of fear such that the values that we hold dear and which are anathema to the terrorists, we agree to relinquish, in the belief that it's part of the 'war on terror' and yet, by us doing so, the terrorists win!      

America and the C word

Don't worry your grace (@His_Grace) I haven't gone all Channel 4 on everyone, read on.

If we are to believe Edward Snowden, any thoughts we commit to all kinds of electronic communication are being monitored and then read by the NSA in America.  I guess that one of the goals of a blogger is to get their message out to the widest possible audience, so that everyone can bask in their sagacity (haha!) so maybe because this has that edgy use of the C word (trust me, don't worry) in the title and mentions the NSA and America, perhaps this post won't bomb!

So, the C word.  The word that President Obama and his advisers have banished from their vocabulary.  The word of course is coup as in a military  coup d'état  and the Obama administration is tying itself into all sorts of knots because it doesn't want to be seen to be supporting a military C word but thinks that the military C word in Egypt is a good thing because it rid America of a fractious government in the Middle East.  The administration doesn't want to use the C word because to do so, would call into question the continued giving of aid to Egypt.  Heavens, it might even mean that those F-14 fighters may need to have their delivery delayed!

It is to America's shame that Obama and his administration are conniving in the deposing of a democratically elected leader.  Having touted the benefits of 'democracy' for so long, they support the overthrow of the democratic result, simply because the answer given by the Egyptian people, was not to America's liking.

This reminds me so much of how Europe and the EU operates.   Referendums are conducted and when the people vote the 'wrong way',then the relevant government is told to go away and ask again until they get the 'right' answer!  Incidentally it is  also to the shame of the EU for their tacit support of the C word but Europe is pretty much irrelevant on the World's stage, these days, so let's not make too big a thing of it.

What is happening in Egypt is a coup - there I said it!  Pure and simple.  My view of the initial uprising in Egypt was that this too was a coup but the military needed to mask their actions with the cloak of 'democracy'.  Well that cloak has well and truly slipped!

Make no mistake.  I am no fan of Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood.  By all accounts he and  they have demonstrated economic incompetence on a grand scale (but then not many governments would be safe if that was a criteria for overthrow) and perhaps more worryingly, their is strong evidence that they have promoted anti-Christian activities against the Coptic Church and other Christians.

However, he was democratically elected.  He has now been deposed and replaced by a military-appointed puppet, who is promising new elections, 'soon'.  What happens if these elections again produce the 'wrong' result?

The 'problem' with Egypt and so many of these new 'democracies' isn't so much about representative participation or however you define democracy, it is about a lack of capitalism.  People really don't care too much about votes - it comes down to basics - food on the table and  a roof over the head.  Socialism in all its forms doesn't deliver that.  Democracy doesn't deliver that.  Capitalism is the only system that will deliver that.  Democracy is a 'nice to have' that comes afterwards. 

That said, if you push democracy, and America and the West does, then you have to stand by the outcomes.  However odious the new government may be, they shouldn't be overthrown by the military.  Yes, I know that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected and yes , I still wouldn't advocate overthrowing his regime.

And so to Syria.  Not a bastion of democracy but somewhere else where America and Europe believe that their own special brand of interference will produce positive results.  How are they going to interfere  Well the talk now is providing arms to the 'right' insurgent/rebel groups.  Who was it said that madness is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  The absolute last thing that the Middle East needs right now, is more weapons (indeed this is something that they haven't needed for a very long time).  The West's track record of picking 'winners' is very poor (can you think of a right choice?  Libya wouldn't be a good answer!), so why would anyone think that suddenly these governments are going to get it right.

Maybe America and Europe should consider that perhaps the reasons that they are so loathed in much of the Middle East is precisely because of their hypocrisy (democracy but only if it gives the  right type of government) and their trying to make countries in their own image (picking winners).  Maybe it is time for America and Europe to back-off and let the Middle East sort themselves out.  Yes it will be bloody and many people will die but having done such a great job in Iraq and Afghanistan does the West have any kind of template that they can hold up to show the success of 'democracy'?

Is the new policy on Syria some kind of surrogate for the abject failure of Obama's policy on Iran.  All that 'positive engagement' and 'open hand' doesn't seem to have slowed down their nuclear arms development, one bit.  So, try to put a 'friendly' in charge in Syria and take away an Iranian ally?  If that is the strategic aim it presupposes that the Syrian disaster will produce something that will be to the West's liking.  I have the strongest possible doubts, that it will.