With the 571 undemocratic votes of super delegates, yesterday Hillary Clinton was boosted up to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. While in reality she has earned only 2184 democratic pledged delegates, which is 199 votes short from the 2383 votes needed for nomination. Since there is only one primary (DC with 46 delegates) left, which will be held in June 14, none of the democratic candidates would be able to claim the nomination, and as a result the party nomination should be decided in the contested convention. But this is a capitalist country and money plays the main role in almost every aspect of life particularly in any critical decision making concerning politics. The story of super delegate and the undemocratic boosting Hillary to get the unfair nomination is just an example, and like it or not, she is probably going to get even more boosted to be the next U.S. President.
If that happen Hillary would not only fail the presidency but she will also let the country down. Here I explain the rationale behind my statement in case you wonder why that may be the case. Everybody who is seeking a job is judged by his/her resume. Let’s take a glance at Hillary’s resume when she was the Secretary of State. She has had a long history of abusing the public’s trust, on her email scandal she pleaded innocence but nearly every major editorial board in the country questioned Clinton’s motives, noting her long history of secrecy. Her foreign policy record is abysmal, from trying to reset relations with Russia, something she later called a “brilliant stroke” that has been an utter failure, to advocating for a war in Libya that has triggered a crisis in destabilizing the region and resulting floods of refugees to Europe. From Libya to Syria, and to Iran, her foreign policy in the Middle East has been a failure. Office of Inspector General has released a management alert detailing rampant mismanagement within the State Department during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tenure. The State Department gives away over a billion dollars of taxpayer money annually in grants. The management alert warned that the State Department had mismanaged over $6 billion.
Hillary’s political and family finances have been under scrutiny, in particular her ties to Wall Street as donation sources for her political campaign, public speaking appearances, her foundation, and her family members. Hillary is terrible on domestic policies too. Her policies matches up seamlessly with Obama’s including ensuring China would buy U.S. debt to fund the stimulus, raising taxes on businesses, jobs outsourcing and crowd out domestic industries, opposing new sanction on Iran, and downplaying major issues like Keystone. In short, a Clinton presidency would serve as a third term for Obama. [DID]
And lo, it came to pass: As of last night, Hillary Clinton is officially the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for President of the United States. Setting aside her party’s elite “super delegate” insurance policy, Clinton has now secured a majority of pledged delegates, which reflect the will of primary voters. And despite falling to Bernie Sanders in a startling 23 nominating contests, the former Secretary of State has attracted roughly 3.7 million more votes than the Vermont Senator nationwide.
The fact that Clinton failed to clear this hurdle until the very last day of balloting underscores her profound weakness as a candidate. She enters the general election stage of the campaign as one of the most disliked and distrusted political figures in America, and one of the least popular presidential nominees of all time. Despite his even uglier public image and endless parade of divisiveness and insults, the Republican nominee-in-waiting only trails her by an average of two percentage points at this stage of the race, inside the margin of error. Several weeks ago, a Democratic operative basked in the afterglow of Donald Trump’s effective nomination victory, crowing on Fox News that the GOP had selected “exactly the candidate they deserve.” Ironically, both Trump’s strong backers and detractors on the right would likely agree with this statement, albeit for different reasons. This week, the same formulation applies to the Democrats. They’ve chosen the corrupt, opaque, power hungry, self-serving, aloof, greedy, politically soulless, congenital liar they so richly deserve. Read more…
My concern about Donald Trump being as the GOP nominee is fourfold, first it is with his trustworthiness, he blasts companies like Ford and Apple for manufacturing products outside the United States. He even threatened to stop eating Oreo cookies after he learned some production was moving to Mexico. But Trump does the same thing, his signature men’s dress shirts and ties are made in China, Bangladesh or “imported,” meaning they were made abroad. The Trump university lawsuit shows another trouble-example with his credibility, a hearing has already been schedule by the Judge in July 18, 2016. In the filing, the Trump University is accused of “persistent fraudulent, illegal and deceptive conduct,” false advertising, “operating an unlicensed private school,” refusing to provide mandated refunds, and other misdeeds.
Second, Donald Trump and the religious right are an unexpected match and his nomination could change the core trend of the republican party for good, a catalyst to loosen the stiffness of the establishment, which GOP may be in need of after all.
Third, trump’s ambitious presidential bucket list, such as rejecting NATO alliance may sound a bit naïve, an indication of lack of understanding of global order that has governed the world since the end of World War II to deter interstate conflict and thus maintaining global stability. Furthermore Trump’s primary objective in foreign policy is to extract cash from allies, he decries that the U.S. is protecting Saudi Arabia and not being properly reimbursed for every penny that is spent. He doesn’t see these alliances and commitments as security guarantees against global threats but fancy sorts of business deals. . As such, a Donald Trump president can make business deals with rogue states such as the theocratic regime of Iran and its terrorist mullahs, to him even human rights can be compromised and negotiated as long as the outcome is economically profitable.
And forth, the delegate math predicts that Trump will probably fall 50 to 100 pledged delegates short of the required 1237, however in the first ballot of convention in July 18-21 he may be able to compensate the shortage by convincing the super delegates to vote for him and become the GOP nominee. Regardless, by all kind of polls it has become evident that Trump as GOP nominee will lose national presidential election to Democratic nominee, either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. [DID]
President Barack Obama is trying but failing to reassure foreign leaders convinced that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. They’re in full-boil panic.
According to more than two dozen U.S. and foreign-government officials, Trump has become the starting point for what feels like every government-to-government interaction. In meetings, private dinners and phone calls, world leaders are urgently seeking explanations from Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Trade Representative Michael Froman on down. American ambassadors are asking for guidance from Washington about what they’re supposed to say.
“They’re scared and they’re trying to understand how real this is,” said one American official in touch with foreign leaders. “They all ask. They follow our politics with excruciating detail. They ask: ‘What is this Trump phenomenon? Can he really win? What would it mean for U.S. policy going forward or U.S. engagement in the world?’ They’re all sort of incredulous.” Read more…
The paid lobbyists of IRI reformers have been busy lobbying political officials and lawmakers in foreign states to clean up the mullahs’ messes by presenting to them showcases of fabricated data on IRI’s records in favor of the regime for undermining its committed crimes, sponsorship of terrorism, nuclear threats, and also to promote the cause for the reform of the Islamic regime. These IRI lobbyists have ties to U.S. lawmakers and have infiltrated the White House, Congress, the State Department, and the main decision making centers of the US government. They have managed to influence and shape the U.S. government policy towards Islamic regime in Iran in favor of the IRI reformers, who are part of the regime. The question is why are the bureaucracies in Washington partnering with IRI lobbyists and the IRI reformers and not with the democracy promoting political forces of Iran? The answer may be embedded in the fact that Barack Hussein in the White House is a Muslim and an effective Islam promoter in the world! After all he bowed to Saudi king, supported Mohamed Morsi of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and lastly he has stretched his hand to terrorist mullahs in Iran. [DID]
When the world’s major powers struck a deal over Iran’s nuclear program in Vienna in July, it represented a victory not just for the Islamic Republic, which has now been granted international legitimacy as a nuclear threshold state, but also for a small but increasingly influential lobby in America, one which has long sought rapprochement between Washington and Tehran and now seeks to leverage a successfully concluded nuclear deal as a means to that end.
This Iran lobby, publicly represented by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), has become a staunch institutional ally of the White House selling the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the nuclear deal is known. But while NIAC has done the heavy-lifting—the ad-buying, the leafleting, and congressional meet-and-greets, all designed to sell lawmakers on the Iran deal—its political efforts also underwrite the economic interests of one very well connected but low-profile Iranian family, the Namazis, who played a key role as intellectual architects of NIAC. Read more…
Speech by Bill Clinton 0n 21 October 1994 on how the world is a safer place based on the “good deal” with North Korea, preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons. On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its first nuclear test. Barack Obama has just made the same speech regarding Iran.
The planet earth and its citizens are living in hell due the lack of effective and capable world leaders, what we have instead are bunch of political dwarfs who are nothing more than elected mercenaries and puppets of the rich sectors, whose only purpose are to preserve their empires of wealth with the cost of pain and suffering burdened on shoulders of the world grassroots.
About two decades ago Bill Clinton’s imprudence paved the way for N Korea to become an atomic power; today we are witnessing the Obama’s naivety and incompetence is setting the stepping stones for the Iranian mullahs to get access to nuclear weapon. History is doomed to repeat itself. Obama says that our deal with Iranian regime will conclude not based on trust but on evidence and verification. Obama’s remark is obviously absurd when at the same time the IAEA agency asserts that as long as the Iranian regime is not ready to voluntarily declare its clandestine atomic activities and sites we have no other way to be able to announce the peaceful purpose of Iran’s nuclear program. Go figure. [DID]
The bloodbath in Syria initially began with peaceful protests at the end of January 2011. U.S. could have acted to shape the Syrian opposition into an effective force to prevail. Direct intervention then was neither necessary nor desirable. The cost of assisting Assad’s opponents with logistic and strategic support at the beginning would have been minimal compare to the accumulating cost of American inaction. Obama’s foreign policy of leading from behind meant nothing more than leaving behind the desperate Syrian people in the middle of an unequal fight, making them to turn elsewhere for help and wind up beholden to and manipulated by many adversary groups and States to U.S.
As a result today we witness the ISIS terrorist group in Syria is spilling over into Iraq, turning the country into a civil war. That has been the result of Obama’s “Watch and Wait” policy. The scenario is repeating again but this time in Iraq, once more we hear the same old stuff from White House and the administration that US will not interfere in Iraq but provide humanitarian assistance for the refugees and displaced people and perhaps delivering some material support. What would be the result? Iranian mullahs will send their terrorist IRGC militias into Iraq to get into the fight against the ISIS group and safeguard the security of the Shiite Shrines. Soon the war in Iraq will escalate and spill over into the neighboring countries that can easily develop into a regional war.
One way to see how all this has happened is to blame the inaction policy of the West led by US, but I personally don’t see it that way. I don’t think that the West is that naive to shoot itself in the foot; I believe this has been the result of a carefully plotted master plan by the West to make the regional adversary groups and States to unknowingly do their dirty job of plowing the region by manipulating and engineering sectarian conflicts among them, Sunni blocs against the Shiite factions. The prerequisite for implementing the blueprint for redrawing the new borderlines in Middle East requires chaos and anarchy in the territory, collapsed civilizations, and fallen States, and that is exactly where the region is heading to. [DID]
AVOIDING aggressive questions is a hallmark of the White House press corps. So it should be no surprise that reporters watching President Barack Obama make an emergency statement on Iraq on June 13th failed to pelt him with the queries that lurk at the center of the debate over America’s role in the Middle East. Namely: Mr President, did you help to bring these horrors about when you rushed to pull American combat troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible? And, Mr President, does any part of you regret ignoring pleas to arm and train non-extreme opposition forces across the border in Syria over the past two years?
Instead reporters allowed Mr Obama to explain why American involvement in Iraq would be limited, would take “several days” to be sent, would not involve any return of ground troops and was conditional on Iraq’s central government coming up with a “sincere” political plan to resolve sectarian divisions. “We can’t do it for them,” Mr Obama said severely.
“Nobody has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside of Iraq and nobody is going to benefit from seeing Iraq descend into chaos. The United States will do our part,” he added. “But understand that ultimately it’s up to the Iraqis, as a sovereign nation, to solve their problems.” Read more…
The Obama administration should be fool to trust Mullahs’ promises to come clean on their nuclear activities. In sealing the agreement with Mullahs, the administration must mind the Shiite doctrine of deceit called “taqiyya”, which is the Shiite religious rationale for concealment or dissimulation in political affairs. This doctrine has not been discussed much in the West, but it should be.
Many governments lie about strategic secrets, especially secrets about nuclear weapons. Mullahs’ approach to its nuclear ambitions, however, is a different form of deception and denial. Western negotiators must be mindful, not only of the technical side of Iran’s nuclear program, but the historical evolution of taqiyya. The teachings of Jafar al-Sadiq, the sixth Shiite imam, emphasize taqiyya as a political tool. “Befriend people on the surface, and keep your grudges and intentions hidden,” he advised. He also defined the relationship between the Shiite and other Muslims: “Being double-faced with one’s own takes one outside the bounds of faith, but with others (with non-Shiites) is a form of worship.”
Taqiyya is one component of the faith, and the Shiites are instructed to practice it until the time the Mahdi (Islamic Shiite Messiah) returns. Until that moment occurs, the Shiite faithful are obliged to practice taqiyya in their dealings with other Muslims, as well as with non-Muslims. There are two different value systems at work here, the policies of the West and of the IAEA that are driven by the concept of transparency as a key doctrine of modernity and modern states, and the one from Mullahs’ perspective, “nuclear” taqiyya, which is a must and can easily discredit the results of the investigation by the West and the outcome wouldn’t be anything less than nuclear-armed Mullahs. [DID]
The latest round of nuclear talks between the West and Iran ended earlier this month without the progress toward an agreement that many had anticipated. Though the United States and its allies seem eager to sign a deal that will put a fig leaf of non-proliferation on an Iranian nuclear program that they are content to leave in place, Tehran has picked up on Washington’s zeal for a deal and is doing what its negotiators have done best for over a decade: stalling. With the international sanctions regime already starting to take on water after last November’s interim agreement that loosened the economic restrictions on Iran, the Islamist regime knows it is in a far stronger position than its Western counterparts.
But rather than reacting to this dismal situation by rethinking his approach, President Obama seems determined to double down on his determination to get a deal. Read more…
Before the end of 2014, China will have become the world’s largest economy. For the first time since 1872 — when China overtook Britain — the United States will not top the list. This news amid data published last week by the International Comparison Program, a respected institution hosted by the World Bank, came as a surprise. The hierarchical shift of the world’s most powerful economies wasn’t expected to happen until 2019.
But this goes beyond just the field of economics. America’s domination faces more challenges ahead. Though the United States does not yet have a rival when it comes to foreign policy, Washington’s voice is not as strong as it had been for over 70 years. Read more…
There is an interesting anomaly in the new Wall Street Journal poll. The headline finding is that most Americans want to pull away from the world: “The 47% of respondents who called for a less-active role in world affairs marked a larger share than in similar polling in 2001, 1997 and 1995.” On the other hand respondents disapprove of President Obama’s foreign policy by a margin of 53 percent to 38 percent, making the president’s approval rating in foreign policy worse than in economic policy (where 42 percent approve of his conduct). Read more…
I think we all know what Barack Obama’s foreign-policy strategy coming into office was.
Step 1: Be Barack Obama (and not George W. Bush).
Step 2: ????
Step 3: World peace!
(With apologies to “South Park.”)
As a candidate, Obama held a huge campaign rally in, of all places, Berlin, touting his bona fides as a citizen of the world. The crowds went wild, as he talked at length about a world without walls (you had to be there). As president, in his first major speech abroad, Obama suggested to a Cairo audience that the fact America elected him was all the proof anyone should need that America had turned the page. Read more…
HOPES that an accord struck on April 17th in Geneva between Ukraine, Russia, America and the European Union would lead to a swift resolution of the Ukrainian crisis have been swiftly dashed. Denis Pushilin, the chairman of the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Donetsk, speaking in the region’s occupied administration building, said that Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister “did not sign for us”.
As part of the agreement, illegal armed groups are to be disarmed and illegally occupied buildings and other places vacated. An amnesty is to be extended to protesters and there will be a new constitutional process that includes “all of Ukraine’s regions and political constituencies”. Read more…
Here’s a safe bet: When President Vladimir Putincompletes the Ukraine stage of his plan to widen the empire he now calls “New Russia,” Americans by and large will be relieved that we didn’t get too involved.
We’ll be relieved because President Obama never made the case for serious involvement. His national-security philosophy, in a nutshell, is to thoroughly debate and deliberate until reaching the inevitable conclusion: We have no good options.
And so we do very little around the globe beyond diplomatic negotiations that go nowhere. Our foreign policy, like “Seinfeld,” is about nothing.
Take Ukraine. Please. Read more…
Barack Obama, president of the United States, does not like to back his diplomacy with military force. He believes there should be a clear sequence of engagement: diplomacy, sanctions, more diplomacy, perhaps more sanctions, and only after all peaceful alternatives are exhausted, the possibility of force. Even then, the administration is loath to entertain such hypotheticals.
This explains why economic sanctions are now the default instrument of American coercive statecraft for confronting challenges to the international order. When Russia invaded Crimea in February, Mr. Obama turned to his “favourite non-combatant command” at the U.S. Treasury Department to design targeted sanctions to increase the costs of Russian revanchism. Read more…