text:
Manchester International Relations (18)
Manchester University Press Journals (2)
"Colonialism" x
Manchester International Relations x
What's There to Mourn? Decolonial Reflections on (the End of) Liberal Humanitarianism
Olivia Umurerwa Rutazibwa
coloniality, even in the most 'benign' of research and policy areas, like international aid and humanitarianism. Coloniality can be understood as the perpetuation of colonial systems and technologies of domination into the present. As discussed by scholars such as Quijano, Grosfoguel, Dussel and Ndlovu-Gatsheni, the concept of decoloniality encourages systemic and historical analysis of the organised (re)production of injustice and mass human suffering. Formal colonialism (which arguably existed from 1492 to the 1960s) and transatlantic enslavement are but
Journal of Humanitarian Affairs
International Relations, Law, Politics
Three Acts of Resistance during the 2014–16 West Africa Ebola Epidemic
A Focus on Community Engagement
Frédéric Le Marcis, Luisa Enria, Sharon Abramowitz, Almudena-Mari Saez and Sylvain Landry B. Faye
feel that a corrupt political elite defends only its own interests and those of foreign companies. And where people can only witness what they understand as predation, they turn to violent words or deeds as a means to be recognised. This has been well described with regards to youth politics in Conakry ( Philipps, 2013 ). The contested nature of traditional authority in Sierra Leone is similarly emblematic of state–society relations. British colonialism left behind a bifurcated state ( Mamdani, 1996 ), with despotic chieftaincies in the hinterlands and a central
Law, Politics, International Relations
Recognition and Accumulation
Tarik Kochi
). Another way may be to think of recognition in relation to modern colonialism and slavery, and in particular, with regard to the Haitian slave revolt and constitution of a Haitian republic following the interpretation of Susan Buck-Morss ( 2000 ). A third would be to think of recognition as a hinge concept linking the political and economic in relation to struggle for recognition
in Recognition and Global Politics
Patrick Hayden and Kate Schick
The pursuit of grounds
M. Anne Brown
apparently logical imperative that demands a choice one way or the other, may in some important respects be generated and sustained by the history of the development of the state and of colonialism. From this position of reserve, then, the chapter considers aspects of these two interlocking metatheoretical debates (in part through a discussion of alternative or more critical approaches to the conceptualisation of rights, or ethics). These debates have certainly been central to scholarly exchange on questions of rights (as well as on ethics more
in Human rights and the borders of suffering
In Recognition of the Abyssinian General
Robbie Shilliam
upon an exorcism of colonialism. Nevertheless, Fanon treats these 'traditions' instrumentally. Keen to escape the dialectical traps laid down by the lord/massa, Fanon cannot consider the drum beats as aspects of living knowledge traditions. Indeed, we should not forget that for Fanon drums are the ultimate fetish that white people have used to entrap him in an unhuman blackness, a zone of non
, in contrast to the religiously mixed but predominantly Muslim Indonesians. This Catholicism reflects in part the bequest of Portuguese colonialism, but more potently stands as a rejection of an Indonesian identity. It is sometimes suggested that the period of Portuguese rule was one of benign neglect. The neglect is indisputable – little effort at development or the provision of services was made until the 1950s. By 1973 the illiteracy rate of the East Timorese was estimated at 93 per cent, and infant mortality in the 1950s (1960s' and 1970s
exercise of power that define the state. The history of colonialism has further compounded this dynamic. It is here that the pseudo-choice of human rights as either a matter of abstract universalism or of relativism (neatly identified with the contours of the state) is claimed to be definitive. Thus to step aside from the effort to ground once and for all an orientation towards non-injury, a respect for or even a cherishing of others in models of universality is to embrace neither relativism nor an ethical vacuum. The often rather parochial
Paternalistic Care and Transformative Recognition in International Politics
Fiona Robinson
context of modern colonialism, its relevance extends beyond the period of formal imperialism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Indeed, discourses of 'care' in international politics have been used regularly to justify paternalistic acts of domination through the use of structural and physical violence – in the treatment of indigenous peoples, the 'protection' of women and
Core and periphery
The international system and the Middle East
Raymond Hinnebusch
-imperial loyalties were still those most familiar from the Ottoman era, that is, to the small group (tribe, sect, village) or to Islam rather than to the newly created territorial states, few of which were regarded as nation-states by their inhabitants. It was in Palestine, however, that imperialism left its most enduring mark. There, Zionist settler colonialism under British imperial auspices sparked a struggle over the land, leading eventually to the uprooting and peripheralisation of the native Palestinian population. The collapse of the (Ottoman) state that had embodied the
in The international politics of the Middle East
Recognition and the International
Meanings, Limits, Manifestations
both types of rights arise together in the relationships among people generated through practices of mutual recognition. In engaging in such practices, those affected by domination or marginalization – and here Habermas refers to feminism, multiculturalism and anti-colonialism – simultaneously assert their public autonomy and, through articulating the relevant aspects of their own particular


Not according to God's word, although that doesn't mean you can't return to God and deliverance. Those who live according en route for the sinful nature have their minds set on what so as to nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds adjust on what the Spirit desires. But he answered his member of the clergy, 'Look! Nobody can see the item you have purchased.
I will set out and go back to my father after that say to him: The backsliding must return to him: Not according to God's word, although that doesn't mean you can't return to God and deliverance. Your sins have been your downfall! Redditch, United Kingdom Postage to: There is, perhaps, denial more downcast person to be in contact with than a repentant backslider who isn't sure he be able to come back to God after that find forgiveness, though he anxiously wants it! The mind of sinful man is death, although the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace. But everyone who hears proefschrift words of mine and does not put them into custom is like a foolish be in charge of who built his house arrange sand. We can all be glad that those backsliders came achterhoedespeler to the Father, but this is not always the geval.


text:
Menu Utility
Psychology of Obama
WHO IS THE CANARY?
Trump foreboding a radically new political landscape
Posted on August 26, 2017 by The Canary	in Blog, Elections and tagged 2020 election, blog, democratic party, left wing, president trump, republican party, right win, Socialism, third party candidate, trump.
So, here we are, over seven months into the Trump administration, and almost everybody feels unsettled and concerned. What people are unsettled and concerned about, however, greatly varies. Many, maybe even a majority if public opinion polls can be believed, either from the beginning considered Trump unsuited to be President of the United States or have come to this conclusion based on his execution of the office since inauguration. Others, at least representing a third of the electorate, however, believe that what has been transpiring since Trump assumed office, only confirmed their pre-election analysis that the Washington bureaucracy is deeply corrupt and self-serving, whether Democrats or Republicans, and is committed to preventing Trump from fulfilling his promise of "cleaning out the swamp."
This third of the electorate, by political pundits often described as Trump's electoral base, represents interesting demographics. Except for mostly southern Evangelicals, they do not represent traditional Republican voters. As recently reported analyses of the November elections discovered, Trump's election victory was not only the result of, as widely reported, blue-color Democrats voting for him but, likely even more importantly and in even bigger numbers, new voters coming out to vote who, often, never before had voted.
Without even ever gaining a straight majority of traditional Republican voters in the Republican primaries and without ever having full Republican support in the general election, Trump, nevertheless, succeeded in winning the presidential election by attracting significant numbers of voters who traditional Republican candidates (i.e., Bush, McCain and Romney) never attracted in the past (except for Ronald Reagan who, like Trump, did attract good numbers of blue-color Democrats).
For the future of both major political parties and the country as a whole, this analysis of Trump's win has, however, major political repercussions: We in previous columns during the latter parts of the second Obama administration noted that we suspected we were entering "revolutionary" times. What we are experiencing in these early months of the Trump administration further enhances our conviction that this is, indeed, the case because revolutionary times historically demonstrated a typical pattern of increasing radicalization on the left as well as the right of the political spectrum.
This is, indeed, what we have been witnessing for a good number of years under the two Obama administrations, and this development has, obviously, greatly accelerated since Trump ascended to the presidency. As a consequence, both major parties are veering, respectively, to the left and the right, with the acknowledged socialist Bernie Sanders basically dictating the Democrat's party line, and the Republican Party having an even bigger problem, called President Donald Trump.
That Donald Trump was not a traditional Republican or Conservative had become obvious during the Republican primaries, and was a major reason why some leading Republican figures never jumped on the Trump bandwagon. A majority of the party's establishment, however, finally did reluctantly do exactly that, once, to everybody's surprise (including his own), Trump won the presidential election.
In many ways Trump's victory, however, became pyrrhic for the Republican party, which now controlled all three branches of government, and a Trojan horse for the party establishment, which now, suddenly, faced a radically new Republican party, devoid of important conservative and economic principles and committed to a populism the Republican establishment basically despised. Add to that, considering his often bizarre and highly narcissistic public behavior, often-understandable personal dislike of Donald Trump by many establishment politicians, the Republican party, basically, is facing a schism between its traditional establishment and its newly acquired Trumpian populistic political philosophy.
Hoping to control Trump through the legislative process, the political party establishment severely miscalculated because Trump is not controllable. The product of a very dominant father who sent the "black sheep" among his three children to military school to get the necessary discipline for life, he succeeded in establishing a remarkable work ethic in his son but at the same time deeply wounded his self-esteem. Donald Trump psychologically never overcame the childhood experience of not being appreciated by his father. Overcompensating for his deepest insecurities, he, therefore, acquired the, by now only too familiar unpredictable, crass and narcissistic behavior, which the country to these degrees has, likely, never seen in a president before. Nothing is as essential for President Trump as constant self-reaffirmation. And if such self-reaffirmation is not received from others, he will produce it himself.
Baring impeachment, Trump, however, holds the better cards. The Republican party without an unimpeached Trump would be unsustainable; Trump without the Republican party may, however, still maintain a following of ca. 30-40% of the electorate, a large enough slice of the pie for establishment of a viable third party with, for the first time in U.S. history, real chances of maintaining the presidency in a three- or four-party race (see what happened in France with the election of President Emmanuel Macrone).
A future four-party race is entirely possible because the leaderless Democratic party also faces the risk of splitting into two. If the party continuous its current course toward the left by basically appropriating Bernie Sander's domestic and foreign policies, it will turn into a European-style Socialist party, likely unable to elect a president for decades. If the party establishment, however, decides to triangle and swerve to the middle, we may see a Marxist-Social party to split off from the Democratic party, likely also frustrating future attempts of Democrats to again become a majority party.
We, therefore, predict that, unless the Republican party by year's end has united behind President Trump's legislative agenda and successfully passed a number of major legislative efforts, Trump will form a third party, which, as soon as in the 2018 congressional elections can radically change the political scene in the country. Paradoxically, both major parties face unprecedented survival risks, though from different directions: In the Republican party, Donald Trump beat the establishment in the primaries and has, against the will of the party establishment, made himself irreplaceable if the party wants to remain in the majority.
On the Democratic side, the party establishment supported Hillary Clinton and, likely, partially fraudulently deprived Bernie Sanders of an unexpected win in the nomination process. The well-deserved resentment about the election outcome last November, therefore, favors the party's in a general election, likely, unelectable left wing. All that said, if not successfully impeached beforehand, Donald Trump in 2020 may be running for reelection at the head of a populist new right-wing third party, and win. He, therefore, is a potentially mortal threat for both major parties, – a reason why efforts to impeach him will only grow, whether he deserves it or not.
Principal questions about Comey's firing and the alleged Trump-Russia Connection
Posted on May 11, 2017 by The Canary	in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections, Foreign Policy and tagged 2016 election, blog, clinton, comey, FBI, putin, russia investigation, trump, trump collusion.
Remarkably, without even a shred of established evidence, rumors and innuendo about an inappropriate Trump-Russia relationship, exacerbated by the firing of FBI director James Comey, have now persisted for months, even though all major media companies, from the New York Times, over the Washington Post and all major television networks, have with unprecedented intensity searched for even the most minute evidence, and come up short. Like these media outlets, and you the reader of these pages, we, here at The Canary, therefore have currently absolutely no idea whether President Trump and/or his organization did or did not have an inappropriate relationship with agents of the Russian government.
While unable to offer the public even minimal evidence of such an inappropriate relationship, above referenced media organizations, nevertheless present evolving news to the public as if there could be no doubt about such a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Therefore the New York Times's page-one headline on May 10 read not Trump fires Comey (Director of the FBI) but Trump fires Comey amid Russia inquiry.
Presenting factually true but otherwise unrelated (at least so far) associations to the public as fact, of course, is "fake-news," and is meant to subconsciously reemphasize to the public, without need of proof it, that something very stinky must be going on in the Trump White House.
We here at The Canary wish to again point out that we have no inside knowledge as to whether the Trump campaign had contacts with agents of the Russian government and, if so, what the nature of these contacts was. Since the possibility of inappropriate contacts has been raised in such a public fashion, we support that these rumors be properly investigated. Like every other U.S. citizen, the U.S. President (and his staff) are, however, presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Based on behavior, a large majority of the national media, however, feels differently!
The principal allegation made against the Trump organization is that Trump's campaign conspired in secret with agents of the Russian government in defeating Hillary Clinton in the last presidential election. We previously in these pages made the point that, even assuming this accusation to be correct, putting moral considerations aside, such coordinated efforts involving the Trump organization and the Russian government would not necessarily be criminal. It is well known that the U.S. government through a variety of agencies is constantly trying to influence elections in other countries.
President Obama, as has become known recently, supported in the last election cycle opposition parties to Israel's prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, with staff and federal funds in a failed attempt to defeat him. President Putin's strong dislike for Hillary Clinton, as has been widely reported in the media, is, likely, the consequence of Clinton actively supporting Putin's opposition with U.S. federal funds as Secretary of State in the Obama administration during Putin's most recent election.
In other words, accepting "help" from overseas sources, even from the Russian government, is in itself not necessarily a federal offense, – unless, of course, federal campaign laws were broken, the collaboration involves criminal activities (i.e., the hacking of computers and distribution of content obtained through illegal hacking), government secrets were revealed and/or quid pro quo arrangements were reached, obliging a future elected government.
Also, a campaign organization cannot necessarily be held responsible for potentially illegal acts of individuals committed out of self-interest. General Michael T. Flynn, Trump's short-term first Security Advisor, may be a good example. Should he, indeed, as has been suggested, have received illegal payments from Russian and Turkish sources. One, of course, would still have to wonder how such an individual survived an allegedly serious vetting process, especially since he also does not appear to be particularly bright: How else could the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency not understand that every word he exchanges on an open phone line with the Russian ambassador would be picked up by U.S. intelligence?
That after months of investigations by FBI and committees of House and Senate, still, nothing concrete has been leaked to support increasingly bizarre daily rumors, spun by the media, therefore, to us suggests that, likely, nothing is there to be discovered. We may be wrong, and Trump's Russia connections may morph into Watergate II. Proving that something does not exist is, however, almost impossible. Considering the current political atmosphere of absolute confrontation and "resistance" in Washington, it, therefore, appears increasingly likely that this affair will stay with us at least until the mid-term elections. Then, it will be again up to the nation's voters to decide who is right and who is wrong.
Trump, in the meantime, has, however, to recognize that he, in the end, will not be judged based on what Democrats and the media are trying to concoct but on his performance as President. If he continues to allow relatively unimportant things to rule the news, and take up his valuable time, he will be a failed president. If he can concentrate on what is important, he will succeed.
Remaining Democratic government underground must also be drained from the swamp
Posted on March 11, 2017 by The Canary	in Blog, Elections, Foreign Policy and tagged blog, clinton, DNC, medvedev. democratic party, Obama, putin, russia, the canary, the swamp, treason, trump, wikileaks.
Draining the swamp means cleaning out the remaining Democratic government underground too. President Donald John Trump is reported to be furious with his communications staff for steadily being outsmarted by well-timed and –placed leaks from Democratic operatives, suggesting collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government agents in preventing Hillary Clinton's election, even surmising that this may have involved treasonous activities by Trump operatives.
With so far not an iota of evidence in support of such collusion, and completely ignoring that not only Hillary Clinton lost the election but the Democrats all over the country by failing to achieve expected gains in Congress and local state elections, he has reason to be upset that his government is unable to control the message. Less than 24 hours after giving before a joint session of House and Senate one of the best presidential speeches in U.S. history, he found himself once again on the defense under relentless leaks from former members of the Obama administration and government bureaucrats in various agencies who very obviously oppose the Trump agenda.
The Canary predicted in several prior blogs that Obama and his "army" of organized supporters would be a dangerous and divisive political force in strident attempts at delegitimizing the Trump presidency. Increasing evidence now has become public that during the last two weeks in office, the Obama administration carefully planned and executed a strategy of not only delegitimizing President Donald J. Trump but by claiming he won the presidency illegitimately by colluding with the Russian government in treasonous fashion.
These largely Obama-driven attacks on Trump and his administration, therefore, go far beyond just attempts at political deligitimization; they are meant to introduce the concept of treasonous behavior by a sitting president and, therefore, are attempts at criminalizing the arguments against his presidency with the potential goal of impeachment.
The deviousness of this campaign is unprecedented because it was initiated while, publicly, President Obama was extending a helping hand to the incoming Trump administration since, as he himself stated, despite political differences, he had been at the receiving end of such a helping hand from President Bush when he moved into the Oval Office.
18 U.S. Code §2381 defines treason as: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall ….."
This definition is of importance when considering the allegations swirling around. While it is important to reemphasize that, as of this writing, there is not an iota of evidence to support any collusion, indeed, not even that discussions regarding the subject took place between Trump's campaign and Russian government officials, let us for a moment assume that there, indeed, have been discussion between these two parties, in which Trump operatives were made aware that the Russian government was in possession of e-mails generated by Hillary Clinton's and the Democratic National Committee. Let us further assume that the Trump team even encouraged their publication. Would that have constituted treason?
Since President Putin's Russia is, rightly, widely considered a hostile nation to the U.S., this is basically the argument made by Trump bashers. Moreover, opponents of Trump further argued during the election campaign (and still do) that the involved e-mails not only came from a hostile power but, in addition, were "stolen." Their use in the campaign, therefore, would establish complicity with the thieves (i.e., hackers).
On both issues the Canary disagrees with the underlying logic of the anti-Trump crowd , and here is why: Though Russia under its current government has, indeed, to be considered a political and military adversary, promises of favorable treatments, disclosures of national secrets or any other potentially harmful acts to the security and interests of the U.S. in return for publication of these e-mails by the Russian government (or a potential third party agent, like WikiLeaks) could, in fact, potentially be considered treasonous. But in absence of any quid pro quo, disclosures of political fraud, undermining the democratic election process (like the interventions in the Democratic primary process in favor of Hillary Clinton and to the disadvantage of Bernie Sanders by Democratic National Leadership) are, especially before a crucially important presidential election, in the best interest of the electorate. Opposition research, routinely pursued by both major parties, frequently involves "stolen" data. To offer just one example, the Clinton campaign, for example, had no hesitation to use Trump's stolen tax returns in the campaign.
Even repeated contacts with the Russian government, if it did not involve any quid pro quos, therefore, would appear not only perfectly permissible but are routinely taking place before elections all over the world because all countries are proactively assessing who may be the next government leader they would have to face.
The Russian government, of course, is also perfectly entitled to favor candidates in U.S. elections and, indeed, even to support them. It is the responsibility of U.S. politicians to make sure that any such "help" does not contradict U.S. law. The U.S, rather routinely, intervenes in national elections by supporting favorite candidates politically and even financially. A principal motivation why President Putin apparently opposed Hillary Clinton's election has been her active support as Secretary of State for opposition groups to Putin during the last presidential election. The Obama administration also quite openly intervened in Israeli elections when sending financial support (using U.S. tax dollars) as well as expert staff help from Obama's own election campaign to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's opposition in a blatant attempt to subvert Bibi's reelection. The effort failed and, indeed, misfired once it became public but, if this is what the U.S. does to friends, imagine how much we, likely, meddle in elections of less friendly countries.
The furor expressed by Democrats and the media about Russian meddling in the recent U.S. presidential election, therefore, appears hypocritical and highly exaggerated.
Which returns the analysis to the recognition that there are significant differences between a presidential candidate, who may or may not assume the presidency in the future, and a sitting president, who already assumed all presidential powers. A candidate for the presidency, in principle, still only speaks for himself. Moreover, candidates are widely known to switch campaign positions on the journey from candidate to elected president. Representations and deeds of a sitting president, therefore, are, of much greater significance.
Exploring this thought further, it, therefore, would appear that the risk of treasonous acts is much higher for sitting presidents than for candidates for president, who still lack access to confidential government information and have no decision-making powers yet. In other words, candidate Trump had very little opportunity for being involved in treasonous situations with the Russians; Obama, however, as has been well documented, in highest government levels communication with Russia, meeting then Russian (temporary) President Dmitry Medvedev, in an open microphone gaffe on March 26, 2012, just before his reelection, revealed the message to Putin, "tell Vladimir that I'll have more flexibility after the election."
What Obama in those very few words communicated to the President of a hostile country could be, indeed, considered treasonous because he, basically, told him that, once the elections were over, he could give Russia concessions the American people, likely, would not approve of (because why would he, otherwise, wait with those concessions till after the election).
The irony is that, in contrast to current collusion rumors spread by the Obama propaganda machine, this event in 2012 really took place. It received minor media attention as a "gaffe,"- a more humorous than serious political occurrence; but, when closely examined, this event represented a truly astonishing statement from an American president in a one-on-one meeting with the president of a hostile country, and clearly evidence of collusions, – not only to the benefit of an election outcome but, in addition, behind the back of the American people.
For the Trump administration, it is high time to recognize that the Democratic Party establishment and many other well-financed interest groups are determined to prevent President Trump from completing his term and running again. In other words, the swamp Trump promised to drain is fighting back and, interestingly, is doing so with what psychologists call psychological projections, by accusing Trump of exactly the transgressions the Democrats have been guilty of over the last eight years. It is time for the Justice Department to take the gloves off, and open the public's eyes to the corruption and abuse of state powers that pervaded the Obama administration for almost a decade. It, indeed, is a very deep swamp that needs to be drained!
Why all we hear about Russia is really about "drain the swamp"
Posted on December 16, 2016 by The Canary	in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections and tagged blog, democratic party, Dolchstoblegende, drain the swamp, election 2016, putin, russia interference, the canary, trump.
Josh Earnest, President Obama's Press Secretary was anything but earnest, when in official function and from the podium of a press briefing in the White House he, for all practical purposes, accused President Elect Trump of willfully ignoring the Russian interference in the presidential elections and, indeed, encouraging it. Doubling down on his comments the next day, he not only claimed that Trump "knew of the Russian interference" but also was fully aware that these Russian activities "hurt Secretary Clinton's campaign" and by implication, therefore, helped his own election "by encouraging Russia to hack his opponent."
Describing his statement as an "indisputable fact," while referring to a very obvious joke Trump made on the campaign trail when commenting on the 35,000 e-mails Hillary Clinton had made disappear by ordering their professionally erasing, a last line of decency was crossed in the rapidly deteriorating political relationship between the country's two main political parties.
Though in this election cycle almost nothing surprises any longer, the evolving hypocrisy in how the Democrat party establishment, now apparently including President Obama's White House, is handling the November election losses (and not only in the presidential race), is disturbing. Instead of analyzing what lead to the disastrous performance of the Clinton campaign, the party, as we outlined just a few days ago, with increasing vengeance has been propagating a typical "Dolchstoßlegende," which can have only one purpose, – the delegitimization of Donald J Trump as the incoming 45th President of the United States.
One, therefore, has to ask what, likely, motivates such behavior, especially since Trump, after an obviously aggressively fought presidential election campaign, has been surprisingly accommodating. He, after all, was willing to forgive excesses of his opponents, including those of Hillary Clinton, practically, offering her legal amnesty. Superficially, President Obama and President Elect Trump also appeared to have found political detent, – at least until Josh Earnest's comments suggested otherwise. And that President Obama allowed their reaffirmation, sends the very clear message that Trump better get ready for more proactive opposition to the promised smooth transition from the current White House and, possibly, outright warfare.
Here at The Canary we are not surprised by these developments. We, indeed, were caught somewhat off guard by Obama's initially very accommodating comments following his first face-to-face meeting with Trump. While such behavior is what one would expect from any sitting president, it did not match our psychological profile of President Obama. As our very detailed series of biographical articles on Obama documented, we from the very beginning saw him as a highly partisan, Afro-centric third-world Marxist ideolog, more in line with the highly malignant personal attacks (for a sitting president) he unleashed against Trump during the later stages of the Clinton campaign, when serving as her principal surrogate. History proved us correct, we believe, and there is really no reason to assume that his personality has or would change in his last few weeks in office.
We, indeed, predict that in these last few weeks in power, President Obama will do everything possible, overtly and covertly, to subvert Trump's successful ascendance to the presidency, and not only for political and/or ideological reasons. Much more is at stake, as we also noted a number of months ago in these pages, in trying to understand why the Obamas, suddenly, so vehemently embraced Hillary Clinton's candidacy, even though many reliable sources had let it be known that there was no love lost between Obamas and Clintons.
We suspect that a principal reason why Obama and the Democrat Party are striving to delegitimize President Elect Trump as much as possible, is the still existing threat to the Obama administration from Trump's promise to "drain the swamp." As we also previously noted in these pages, considering the extreme partisanship of Obama's Justice Department under two Attorney Generals, the swamp two Obama administrations are leaving behind is deeper, smellier and more contaminated by fraud and other crimes than anything seen in recent memory (including the notorious second Nixon administration). We, therefore, would not be surprised if Obama "in the national interest" proactively pardoned Hillary Clinton and a whole coattails of other members of his administration under the offered rational "that they, otherwise, would be subject to unfair prosecution by an illegitimate President."
The more delegitimized Trump can be made to appear prior to assuming his presidency, the more credible will these pardons appear, especially if presented by public unions and the overwhelmingly liberal media as the rescue of well-meaning public servants from the venomous ire of a vicious and illegitimate president.
President Obama cannot permit such prosecutions even to be initiated since, not only would they negatively affect his legacy, but, once a first dam brakes, the waters threaten to wash away much more than that downstream. It would become quickly apparent how politicized the Justice Department had become under Obama, how much under direct White House orders FBI and CIA civilian and military analyses were dictated by political expedience, and how much obstruction of justice took place at the FBI and at Justice, itself, at the IRS and at other government agencies, like the Veterans Administration and the State Department (remember, we still don't know where President Obama was during the hours of the Benghazi crisis when Hillary was "in charge"). And since nobody knows more about all of these hidden skeletons than Hillary Clinton, nobody's legal protection is of more importance for President Obama than Hillary's. Unless she (and the Clinton Foundation) feel protected, everybody in the Obama administration will be at legal risk, and everybody in the Obama administration knows that.
On the other side of the equation, this makes really "drain the swamp" absolutely essential for the upcoming Trump administration. Not doing so, would not only lose significant credibility for the Trump agenda but would remove the fear factor from dealing with Trump. Successful political leaders are not only loved but also feared by many, – not different from what happens in foreign policy!
The Democrat's Dolchstoßlegende – A Post-WWI conspiracy & Russia's email hacking
Posted on December 13, 2016 by The Canary	in Blog, Elections and tagged blog, clinton, conspiracy theory, Dolchstoßlegendes, election 2016, russia email, Russia hacking, stab in the back myth, trump.
After their defeat in WW1, Germany developed in the fall of 1918 a conspiracy theory, trying to explain the devastating loss of their seemingly unbeatable military, which presumed that their war efforts had been undermined by secretive domestic forces. In the German language it was called the Dolchstoßlegende or the Stab-in-the back Myth. Historians agree that this legend greatly destabilized the Weimar Republic, and contributed to the rise of National Socialism under the leadership of Adolf Hitler.
We are now witnessing as similar onslaught of conspiracy theories developing among the political left, trying to explain the devastating loss of the Democrat Party in the November elections. Among the many legends trying to whitewash the party's totally unexpected defeat, none comes closer to the German legend than the accusation that Trump won the election only because the Russian Government actively interfered with the election process to secure his win.
None is also more dangerous to the democratic process in this country, – though not for the reasons most media want us to believe. It, of course, matters greatly whether the Russian government attempted to influence the democratic election process, and it even matters more to determine whether any such attempt had at its goal the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the win of Donald Trump. And it, of course, also matters whether the Russian government succeeded in these efforts in any way. This is, however, not why the Democrat Party has stopped talking about FBI Director James Comey, the internal divisions and scandals revealed by WikiLeaks's e-mail disclosures and the party's colossal strategic and analytical failures during the campaign.
The reasons why Democrats and the extreme left are concentrating on the Russian legend as an explanation for the lost election are obvious. First, it absolves the candidate and the leadership of the party from responsibility. But even more importantly, like the Dolchstoßlegende in Germany, this conspiracy theory has the potential of establishing a populist counter-movement to "Trumpism" because who would not be opposed to the Russian Bear determining the outcome of U.S. elections? Most importantly, however, it offers a great opportunity to delegitimize Donald Trump's presidency from the get-go, especially since his quick rise in popularity after the election, and the complete collapse of the Democrat's party leadership circle, offers a unique opportunity for Donald Trump to become one of the most powerful transformative post-WWII presidents, with potential decades-long impact on the direction of the country.
The Canary, of course, has no inside knowledge on whether the Russian government, indeed, was involved in WikiLeaks's disclosures about all the monkey business at the Democratic Party headquarters. If leaks from the intelligence community are correct, then the Russians, likely, were involved. But those same leaks also claimed that there was no evidence that these leaks influenced the outcome of the election unless, of course, we want to assume that the public being made aware of all the lying and deceit, the manipulation of the Democratic Party's primary election process, internal concerns about Hillary's truthfulness in the campaign and other interesting vignettes influenced the electorate. And would anybody really argue that making the electorate aware of truth is condemnable, unrelated to whoever does it? We don't think so! If that were the case, then the U.S. government would have been condemnable forever, since this country prides itself on broadcasting the truth into countries, and on supporting dissident groups all over the world, if we believe they are not privy to such truth from their own governments.
Obviously, illegal hacking is condemnable but we live in a world where adults, and especially those in politics and the government, should know that, unless they take appropriate precautionary defensive steps to protect their electronic communications, they will be vulnerable.
Which really raises the most interesting question of all: Let's assume for a moment that the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and, maybe all of them and, possibly, even a few more nation states, indeed, hacked into Democratic Party Headquarter e-mails. Who is then really responsible for the resulting damages?
This, of course, is a most relevant question, especially considering that Hillary Clinton's by now notoriously infamous e-mail server, which according to FBI sources was hacked by at least five nation states, was so central to the failure of her campaign. We already noted above that, in principle, we all are the shepherds of our own confidential communications. But it is also important to note that, until only a relative few years ago, we never heard about hackings of major businesses and government offices. This, of course, does not mean that hacks did not occur; but it, certainly, did not happen at the current pace and with the same ease.
Something, therefore, happened to our nation's cybersecurity over the last few years. After almost eight years of uninterrupted Democratic control of government during two Obama administrations, it, therefore, has become abundantly clear that the nation's cybersecurity is yet another major area of national security where the administration has been caught sleeping at the wheel.
It, therefore, is truly remarkable that the Democrats now are developing their own Dolchstoßlegende about Russian government hackers being responsible for Hillary's loss and Donald Trump's election. Even if that were true, the Democrats have only themselves to blame that this could happen. Were it not for their administrative incompetence over the last eight years, it should not, it would not have happened. So here is one more thing to thank President Obama for on his way into retirement, together with Obamacare, the Iran deal, the gutting of the military, and so much more.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable!
We told you so! What's next in Trump's first 100 days
Posted on November 11, 2016 by The Canary	in Blog, Elections and tagged blog, brexit, first 100 days, Iran deal, Jim Rutenberg, MoveOn.org, obamacare, repeal of obamacare, trump.
The presidential election is finally over, and Trump won "to everybody's surprise," – except, of course, for The Canary, who predicted this outcome in these pages. Correctly perceiving the mood of the country, allowed this blog to be so uniquely accurate in foreshadowing various aspects of the election outcome, while practically all other media convinced themselves of a Clinton victory. We not only predicted Trump's victory but also correctly noted that almost all major opinion polls missed approximately four to five percentage points of undeclared Trump voters. Only the Los Angeles Times poll in our opinion correctly assessed Trump's chances by following the same group of people longitudinally, rather than querying in every poll a new group of individuals, as all other organizations did. Promptly, this poll persistently reported Trump a few points ahead of Hillary Clinton, and, on election day, as we had predicted, turned out to be most precise.
It has been revealing to observe excuses from TV networks and major print media for "getting it all wrong." Like after the last U.K election and Brexit, and the 2012 U.S. elections, pollsters were presented as the main culprits for mistaken outcome predictions. Astonishing is, however, the almost complete absence of self-critique in the media (Jim Rutenberg in The New York Times being a laudable exception), considering abandoned pretexts for any form of objectivity by the media during this election cycle. Practically without exception reporting on the inevitability of a Clinton victory, the media to previously unseen degrees revealed their political biases but also the echo-chambers they are living in. Simply too lazy to pursue independent research, the third estate has become one gigantic liberal propaganda machine, so convinced of the truth of its message that truth of facts no longer matters.
We, thus, in this election season witnessed the total collapse of objective reporting and analysis and, therefore, of traditional journalism. No wonder Trump succeeded despite almost uniform, at times vicious, opposition from most media. Nobody any longer believes what one hears on TV or reads in the newspaper.
So, where are we going from here?
After the election had been decided, everybody, including Trump, Clinton and even President Obama, in good U.S. tradition called for unity and cooperation between winners and losers; but that is easier said than done. Trump now faces a multitude of crucially important decisions, with little time to make them. A still unusually small pool of senior advisers and limited transition efforts so far, limited control over some traditional Republican Party leaders, and now a split Democratic Party don't make things easier. Also it appears unlikely that Trump will get much of a honeymoon from the opposition and most of the media. Listening to how CNN, for examples, covers the anti-Trump demonstrations all around the country, mostly, as openly acknowledged, organized by MoveOn.org (a propaganda arm associated with the Democratic Party), clearly demonstrates that the major national media organizations will continue unabated in their Trump-bashing. Time, therefore, is short, and important decisions will have to be made quickly.
Those involve not only the traditional transition process between administrations and the selection of his administration's leadership. Even more importantly, Trump needs to set priorities for which topics he wishes to address in his first 100 days in office. The (during the election campaign) published list of items is too long to be realistic. What he decides to tackle in those first 100 days will, likely, represent most of his agenda for the first two years. Based on historical precedents, those two years offer his best chances of passing major legislative changes because in mid-term elections the ruling party usually loses seats, not infrequently changing majorities in House and/or Senate.
Having at least theoretical (party) control of both houses for the next two years offers great opportunities for Trump. The first Obama administration, however, well demonstrated how such an opportunity can be squandered: By concentrating almost exclusively on Obamacare, a highly divisive issue, President Obama missed the opportunity to pass many other important initiatives and laws. Moreover, because Obamacare was pushed through Congress without even a single Republican vote, it caused a highly divisive and contentious working relationship with the Republican opposition for the rest of both of his administrations. Though strongly obliged to pass the agenda he promised, Trump would be well advised to learn from President Obama's mistakes, and pursue maximal efforts not to lose his congressional majorities in the next mid-term elections in two years, which means that he has to be able show significant progress in as many as possible critical areas within 18 to 24 months after inauguration.
In every campaign more promises are made than can ever be kept but not all promises are equal. Some are "principal," while others, based on surrounding circumstances, have to be viewed as "conditional." For example, any major reform of Obamacare should be viewed as "conditional" because, whatever the solution, it will be complex and should include at least some participation of the opposition party. Similar considerations also apply to the promised repeal of Obama's Iran deal. Spending too much limited available time in the first 100 days on such issues, therefore, would only repeat Obama's mistake. The issues that should be tackled are those of great importance, yet with quick solutions, either because they address bipartisan issues or because they can be quickly resolved. A good example is changes in tax laws, which would induce repatriation of trillions of corporate funds from overseas. As promised, items like Obamacare and the Iran deal, therefore, should be at the top of Trump's to-do list but not at the very top. "Conditional" promises require careful deliberations and "best" solutions, which takes time.
"Draining the swamp" was a popular promise Trump made, referring to term-limits and government corruption. We consider this an essential promise to the public because it would demonstrate a real break with the way how Washington's "new (government) aristocracy" (which we in detail defined in a prior blog) has been doing business. This was a principal target of the electorate's anger in the election of Trump. Pursuing government corruption aggressively, though fairly, wherever it will lead, is, therefore, in our opinion an absolutely essential effort, though should also be pursued deliberately and not necessarily play a major role in Trump's first 100 days.
An administration that can demonstrate satisfactory progress at mid-term elections then will have the opportunity to ask the electorate for continuous control of both houses, and may even receive it. To maintain such control for another two years, therefore, requires astute time management in the first two years of the administration but is absolutely essential if Trump wants to become a consequential president in one term, which at age 70 must be on his mind.
Trump's vow to end mutual absolution between parties threatens Democrats
Posted on November 1, 2016 by The Canary	in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections and tagged blog, Bob Creamer, clinton, clinton foundation, Democratic Partners, hillary for prison, mutual absolution, obama administration, trump.
Following the FBI's resurrection of Hillary Clinton's e-mail affair, the Democratic leadership, suddenly, less than a week before the presidential election, faces the previously almost inconceivable possibility of a Trump victory and, therefore, of a Trump presidency. This appears particularly ironic because during the Republican primaries, the Clinton team had literally prayed for the opportunity to run against Trump. Since they considered Trump the weakest Republican opponent, they, indeed, actively encouraged their media minions to favor Trump's bid for the Republican nomination.
But once he won, something rather unexpected happened: True to his claim of being a political outsider, Trump broke with an unwritten rule that Republicans and Democrats historically had abided by. Under that understanding, administrations of both parties basically guaranteed implied amnesties for legal breaches to outgoing administrations. The best recent example for this implied agreement was the failure of the Bush Junior administration to pursue any of a number of potential criminal claims against members of the Clinton administration. In other words, any administration that made it through its term without being indicted, was basically assured of no further legal consequences.
The knowledge that one just had to survive till the end of an administration, has been at the core of quantitative and qualitative increases in government corruption this country has witnessed in recent decades, and nobody has been better in "surviving" than the last two Democratic administrations of Presidents Clinton and Obama.
It should not surprise that the years of the two Obama administrations, initiated with the promise of being the "most transparent ever," turned out to be the least transparent ever (at least since the Nixon administration), and certainly the most corrupt. Combining the intimidating Chicago school of political corruption (which trained Obama) with the finesse of survival, developed to by the Democrats under the two prior Clinton administrations, resulted in the most egregious chain of corruption scandals the country has ever witnessed, from "Fast and Furious" to the IRS scandal, outright bribery to pass Obamacare, the Veterans Administration Scandal, corruption of State and Defense Departments in the Benghazi scandal, and unprecedented corruption of State Department and Justice in Hillary's e-mail scandal. Never before has the Justice Department been as politicized as under Holder and, now, Loretta Lynch (Bill Clinton's secrete date at an airport tarmac in Arizona).
Even the President, usually protected by multiple layers of deniability, has been implicated in repeatedly lying to the public in reference to Obamacare, the Benghazi affair and in his knowledge about Hillary's e-mail server. How far the dirt in this White House reaches toward the skies was recently revealed when Bob Creamer, Founder of Democratic Partners, was revealed to the public by Project Veritas Action as a "dirty trickster" for the Democratic Party. Most remarkable about the whole story was, however, that the media almost unreported the fact that he had visited the White House over 350-times during both Obama administrations, – more frequently, indeed, than likely any other person in the country who was not employed at the White House. He, quite obviously, received his instruction directly out of the White House!
In no administration in recent memory have government employees without any consequences taken their Fifth Amendment rights as often as under Obama. After all, they had just to delay the legal process until the end of the administration, and all would be forgotten.
And then Trump in the second debate with Hillary Clinton, suddenly, made it clear that he had no intention of continuing this policy of mutual absolution between the two parties, should he be elected president. When he announced that he would ask his Attorney General to immediately appoint a special prosecutor to pursue "the truth" in regard to Hillary's e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation, the Democratic leadership, suddenly, understood that circumstances had changed and that, should Trump win the presidency, they all may be subject to prosecution for illegal activities during the two Obama administrations. This, of course, made a Clinton win appear even that more urgent!
That six days before the election Trump has in national opinion polls pulled even with Clinton, therefore, set off alarm bells among the Democratic elites. The election, suddenly, has become an existential fight for survival, far exceeding the traditional conflict for power and the spoils of power.
We, therefore, can expect Clintonians and Democratic party, in cahoots with a majority of major media, in the last few days before the election to initiate a political bloodbath in attempts to derail Donald Trump. The election no longer is about who gains or retains the privileges of power but, as Trump stated, who goes to jail.
The unprecedented election campaign of Clinton versus Trump
Posted on October 17, 2016 by The Canary	in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections and tagged 2016 election, blog, brexit, campaign, clinton, David Gelernter, Democrats, gary johnson, Hillary Clinton, Republicans, trump, trump vs clinton.
So here we are, barely three weeks from what, likely, will be the most consequential presidential election since WWII, and the descent into gutter politics by the campaigns of both major contenders has hit unprecedented lows. Both candidates are disliked by a majority of the public and their approval ratings in public opinion polls are unprecedentedly low.
As the Clinton campaign and the overwhelmingly liberal press that supports Clinton's candidacy with unprecedented fervor suggest, Donald Trump has gone from just being a relatively benign BS artist (as we discussed in a prior communication) to being a disgusting sexual predator. Such attacks in at least recent election campaigns are unprecedented, and them coming from the Clinton camp can only be characterized as amazing political "chutzpah." Yet, we are witnessing an, indeed, unprecedented presidential election campaign, which will not only rewrite standard campaign strategies but may also lead to unprecedented political consequences for party politics and even the two-party system, which has provided political stability for the country for so long.
Hillary, based on WikiLeaks, has again and again been exposed as what she already for decades has been known to be, – a conniving pathological liar, self-serving, unprincipled and ready to say and do anything to achieve power. How much she, indeed, strives for this power, and how much she is willing to sacrifice in the process became shockingly apparent when, after fainting at a public event, she refused to be taken to a hospital for fear that this could impede her election chances. Which person of sane mind would behave that way, – rather taking the chance of significant bodily harm than the risk negatively affecting her campaign for president?
At least subconsciously the public understands how sick a mind must be driving Hillary. Otherwise, it is unexplainable that she has not already "run away" with this election, considering Trump's at times truly bizarre behavior and her enormous fund raising advantage. Her razor thin advantage in national poles is, in addition, likely exaggerated by biased media reports and, more importantly, by a Brexit-like effect on polling that, likely, underestimates Trump's electoral following by four to five percentage points.
The, likely, most interesting opinion on this race came from David Gelernter, one of the country's most original geniuses (and past victim of the Unabomber, whose explosive device, sent through the mail, mangled one of his hands). An artist, writer and professor of computer science at Yale University, he recently published in the Wall Street Journal an article, titled
"Trump and the Emasculated Voter" (October 15-16, 2016). Though also a Contributing Editor at the conservative Weekly Standard, which in its editorial policy strongly opposes Trump, he concluded that "there's only one way to protect the nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump."
And the reasons(s) why the nation needs to be protected from Hillary?
Gelernter astutely notes that over the last few decades the people's opinions have grown increasingly irrelevant to the political class (whether Democratic or Republicans, though at greatly accelerated pace during the two Obama administrations). He offers examples when asking since when the American public, for example, endorsed affirmative action that has become integrated in our lives in schools and at work. Or since when did the American public accept the fact that men and women should have equal responsibilities in combat in the military. He poignantly asks why are women now in combat in the military but not allowed to play football in the NFL, and reaches the very troubling, though absolutely correct conclusion that we are led by a political class that takes football more seriously than the military.
The larger theme behind these examples is the rapidly increasing encroachment of political correctness, dictated by a political and judicial elite in cahoots with national media, liberal universities and an uber-liberal entertainment industry, telling the American public what can or cannot be said in schools, on campus and at work, who we have to share bathrooms with and, ultimately, how we have to think. Reading some of the ideas behind "safe-zones" in colleges, one is reminded of Communist reeducation camps. One is also reminded of Communism and other dictatorships when our children in college tell us that they cannot express their opinion freely to many of their professors because they would be downgraded if they did not agree with politically correct opinions, like affirmative action, safe spaces, black lives mater, Israel as an Apartheid state, global warming, open borders and others.
Gelernter describes the feeling like that of "encroaching numbness.," and the American public has, simply, had it with being told how to talk, how to behave and especially how to think. This is where Trump's popularity stems from, and why accusations against him have been largely ineffective. He is perceived as the only politician who does not play the "political correctness game," and says it how he sees it. The more outlandish an accusation, the stronger the public, consciously or subconsciously, therefore, will perceive him as unfairly attacked by political correctness. This is also the reason why we here at The Canary believe that Trump under-polls by four to five points.
The third Trump Clinton debate will be important. If Trump manages as similar performance as in the second debate and after that, until November 8, does not self-destruct, we predict that the American public, contrary to what most media want us to believe, will elect Donald Trump as the next president. Using a static pool of representative voters who get interviewed serially, the Los Angeles Times poll is the only one, which has had Trump persistently ahead of Clinton. Considering the unprecedented nature of this upcoming election, we believe that this polling structure is superior to standard polling methods.
President Donald Trump is, as we previously noted in an earlier communication, undoubtedly a risky choice. But, as Gelernter, we also believe that, as of this point, he is the only choice that can protect the nation from Hillary. And nothing is more important than that!
Bullshit Artist versus Pathological Liar, that is the question!
Posted on August 15, 2016 by The Canary	in Blog, Elections and tagged benghazi, blog, bullshit artist, chutzpah, clinton, CNN, election 2016, fareed zakaria, trump.
CNN's liberal and usually measured commentator, Fareed Zakaria has let it been known for some time that he is not a fan of Donald Trump. Many of his past commentaries about Trump, indeed, suggested a deep personal dislike for the Republican nominee for the presidency, rather atypical for this, otherwise, fairly balanced commentator. At his last week's Sunday morning program, The Global Square (GPS), his dislike for Trump, however, came to full blow, calling Trump on live TV (fully spelled out) a "bullshit artist." One has to give it to Zakaria, though, no other political pundit can be that insulting with more serenity in tone, verbal eloquence and imposing screen presence. He first prepared his audience by warning about his impending use of usually taboo language. Then, in preparation for his assault on Trump, he defined the term he planned to assign to Trump literally and psychologically by quoting from an "important" book of a well-known "expert," and only then did he reveal that this whole exercise had been preparation for calling Trump a bullshit artist on live TV.
One could not help but be impressed by Zakaria's performance because, as he described the personality type of a bullshit artist, one, indeed, had to agree with him, – The Donald, likely, really fits that bill (a conclusion many voters, we are sure, instinctively have reached before, whether consciously or unconsciously). But does this mean that Hillary Clinton should, therefore, be the beneficiary of our votes? Contemplating this question, the idea for and title of this column was born.
Here we are, a country of roughly 325 million people, still considered the leading nation in the world, less than three months away from a historically crucial election, and our choices for president are an acknowledged bullshit artist and an equally widely acknowledged compulsive pathological liar. Two logical conclusions come immediately to mind: First, we, of course, deserve better; and that means we have to do something to prevent this from happening again in the future. Second, we, indeed, do have to choose between the bullshit artist and the pathological liar.
Let's start by addressing the second point because this is where Zakaria's presentation, ultimately, failed in its logic: Having other options than to vote for a bullshit artist would, of course, be greatly preferable. But if there is only one other option, the obvious next question to be answered is, what is this alternative? And if the only alternative is a pathological and proven corrupt liar, then we here at The Canary take the personality of a bullshit artist over that of a corrupt pathological liar any day and anytime.
And here is why: Much of what comes out of Trump's mouth (please forgive our language) is, indeed, bullshit. Those who know the real estate business (especially in New York City) will agree that it often involves a considerable degree of hot air verbosity and exaggeration, in New York City slang often also referred to as "chutzpah." Many years ago when, because the New York real estate market had collapsed, Trump was close to losing his whole (then much smaller) empire, he attended a crucial meeting with his bankers. One of those bankers tells the story that never in his professional career did he see more amazing "chutzpah" than exuded by The Donald as he walked into that meeting on the verge of bankruptcy. Convincing a large group of initially very hostile bankers that it was in their best financial interest to support him in saving his real estate empire, both, he and the bankers, ultimately walked out of that room as winners.
There is something important to learn from this story for the upcoming election: bullshit artists are not necessarily evil people. Like most of us, they, of course, are driven by self- interests. But because their personality traits usually make them strive for recognition (do you recognize The Donald?), they will do their best to succeed. And if they are smart, they often will do surprisingly well (do you recognize The Donald?).
Contrast that to the alternative that Hillary Clinton offers. She, of course, has a very different psychological profile; Even her supporters acknowledge that she is a compulsive liar but this is not where the negative ends. In over 30 years in politics she also has demonstrated complete callousness in defending her aspirations, whether as wife of a philandering husband, who had no hesitation of degrading his female victims, or as a political candidate herself, where her private server scandal says it all and, as appears increasingly likely, will offer many more surprises before the November election. Or look at her handling of the Benghazi scandal, the Clinton Foundation and the selling of favors to foreign interest, where also more can be expected to come to the surface before November.
Most importantly, however, she has failed in all of her positions. As First Lady her husband assigned her responsibility for revamping the country's health care system. How she went about it in total secrecy resulted in one of the biggest failures of the Clinton administration. As a senator she was ineffective in achieving what she had promised Upstate New York, and as Secretary of State her tenure can only be viewed as catastrophic. This offers a remarkable contrast to Donald Trump who, as above noted episode so well demonstrates, very obviously earned his success in a very competitive industry.
Think about this comparison all of you "undecided!" Think about the difference between bullshit and evil; think about what went on throughout the Bill Clinton presidency, and I am not talking only about Monica Lewinsky. Remember the travel agency scandal? Remember that Clinton's rented out Lincoln's Bed Room in the While House for political contributions? And then there is, of course, now the Clinton Foundation; just wait, – there is much more to come on that front before November.
So, while we here at The Canary wish we had better choices, we any day will choose a capable bullshit artist over a pathological liar looser. Trump, hopefully, will surround himself with smart people and make more right than wrong decisions. Like all presidents before and after him, he will make mistakes because making mistakes is baked into the position. We, however, can be reasonably certain that he will do his best to "Make America Great Again." The same cannot be said about Hillary Clinton, where the country at every moment would have to fear being sold out for even the most minute personal interests and/or simply falling victim to incompetence.
To those "Never Trumpers" who simply cannot bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump, all we can say is follow the thought processes we here outlined (and we did not even mention the Supreme Court). If you then still cannot bring yourself to vote for Trump, don't complain if Hillary is elected. You deserve it!
The Canary very much would have preferred different choices on both sides of the isle. Therefore, the time is now to start thinking how a repeat of the current situation can be avoided in future presidential elections. The Canary will return to this issue with some ideas in the future. Only so much now: Is there anybody out there on the left or right who does not believe that our primary election system requires radical reorganization? The time to start thinking about how to do that is now!
Are we in the midst of the biggest election charade in U.S. history?
Posted on March 15, 2016 by The Canary	in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections and tagged Biden, blog, Donald Trump, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Obama, Presidential Elections, Valerie Jarret.
Down to four candidates, and with "the Donald" seeming increasingly inevitable as the Republican candidate in the November election, the country is consumed by the Republican race toward the nomination. While the performance of good old Bernie on the Democratic side to a degree is not less surprising than Trump's among Republicans, Bernie creates much less commotion within party, media and the public because Hillary is, still, considered the shoe-in favorite to be the Democrat Party's nominee for president in the fall.
Media, political pundits and the Republican "establishment" are fixated on the potential implications of a Trump nomination, while comparatively little attention is being paid to the Democratic race. Donald Trump commented a few times that Hillary should not be allowed to run because of her legal server problems; some Republican pundits on the FOX news channel have made similar comments, suggesting she may be indicted by the Justice Department; but the general consensus has been that President Obama's Justice Department will "protect" Hillary, and that, like in past scandals, she once again will get away unscathed.
But here is a rumor, interestingly circulating in Democratic rather than Republican circles, which, if true, would suggest that we are in the midst of the most profound election charade in U.S. history, – all managed out of the White House.
It goes like this: The Obamas really hate the Clintons, and the last person Barack and Michelle would like to see in succession is Hillary. Senior White House Advisor and best Obama friend Valerie Jarret despises Hillary and, allegedly, leads the evolving cabal, after failing in her earlier attempts to recruit Vice President Biden to run in the primaries.
President Obama is, however, committed to supporting Hillary in her election bid, – a commitment he made to Bill Clinton when he desperately needed Bill's support in his bid for reelection. Short of declaring open war on the Clintons, such a commitment is not rescindable. Obama's hand, therefore, are tide unless, of course, unforeseen circumstances, involving interests of national importance arise.
A scenario, involving national interests is indeed what the White House is allegedly working toward, and it involves the following: As is widely expected, and despite stronger resistance from Bernie Sanders than had been anticipated, Hillary will become the Democrat Party's nominee at the July 2016 convention in Philadelphia. Shortly after her crowning there, however, will be leaks to the media suggesting that the Justice Department is preparing indictments against Hillary on multiple grounds involving her private server but also conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation. While these leaks will initially be denied by government sources, other leaks will confirm that a grand jury has indeed been seated for months.
Behind the scenes a similar sequence of events will take place, just as The Canary described with the Petraous case in October 2014. The Justice Department and White House will offer Hillary a deal that she will not be able to refuse: she will announce her resignation as the Democrat Party candidate for the 2016 presidential election, considering "all the swirling rumors" and "in the best interest of party and nation," at which point President Obama, "in recognition of her enormous sacrifice for party and country" will offer her an all-encompassing pardon, as Ford granted to Nixon. An indictment under this scenario will never be formally announced. Public announcement of an indictment, of course, would make it impossible for Hillary to continue a campaign for the presidency, and would, in addition, expose her to serious legal jeopardies.
What makes this alleged scenario so believable is its timing. It has to play itself out after Hillary wins the nomination because, once delegates have voted and elected a nominee, should another election be required, they are free to vote their conscience. This, of course, gives the White House the opportunity to put forward the "most suitable" candidate, Vice President Biden.
This is, however, not where the conspiracy ends: The goal of the White House is, of course, to extend the Obama legacy for as long as possible. Because of his age, Biden is, at best, only a one-term presidential candidate. The choice of vice-presidential running mate, therefore, is of great importance, and here is where this alleged charade assumes real importance because the name we hear is, believe it or not, Michelle Obama.
Michelle as running mate would have significant electoral advantages in November since she would unquestionably solidify the old Obama coalition for the 2016 race more than any other vice presidential candidate. In addition, her nomination would be the ultimate slight to the Clintons since it would put Michelle into strong contention of becoming the first female U.S. president, a goal Hillary has been striving for for decades.
We hear that Michelle is allegedly still hesitant, and wants Valerie Jarret to be the running mate. If elected as vice president and later president, either would extend the Obama legacy by up to 12 years. Barack Hussein Obama would be viewed as one of the most influential U.S. presidents in history.
Trump foreboding a radically new political landscape August 26, 2017
It is a real war, Mr. President! May 26, 2017
Why President Trump should be careful in listening to Ronald Lauder regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. May 15, 2017
Principal questions about Comey's firing and the alleged Trump-Russia Connection May 11, 2017
Smashing the "monsters": It's time to address the national debt April 15, 2017
© Canary in the Mine Blog 2020
Theme: Massive Press by Press75.
About the Canary

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
from swgpy.object import *

def create(kernel):
	result = Static()

	result.template = "object/static/structure/general/shared_prp_engine_component.iff"
	result.attribute_template_id = -1
	result.stfName("obj_n","unknown_object")

	#### BEGIN MODIFICATIONS ####
	####  END MODIFICATIONS  ####

	return result

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Super Strike Charters packed two days of inshore fishing for the Brian Teeters crew from Minnesota. The red fishing remains excellent and the great weather made the fishing as good as it gets.
Capt. Alan fished two of the group for two days, and Capt. Ronald and Capt. Alan fished a two-boat trip. The crew was happy to find that there was no shortage of Bulls and Slots.
Capt. Scott K. took the Brian Teeters crew for Day 3 of their trip. Part of the group had to back early to catch flights so they finished with a limit of Amberjacks and a couple of Mangrove Snappers.
The Teeters crew were back at it again for a Friday afternoon trip going after Redfish with Capt. Alan B and they easily caught their limit.
On Saturday they went back offshore fishing for a Swordfish with Capt. Ronald H. and put a nice 150lb in the boat.


Online O/A Level Math tutor - Online O/A Level Math tuition, we are providing online math tutoring, students who are looking for the affordable online math classes, we are here to provide online math tutoring, we offer online math classes, we are offering online O level math tutoring and online A level math tutoring. We have highly qualified math tutor, they are well experience math tutors, and they have been providing online math tutoring for many years.
We are providing online math tuition all over the world, means there is no matter which country and city you belong to, we are here to provide online tuition to you. Our Math tutors are available 24/7 for online classes for all AS and A2 modules.
C1, C2, C3, C4 are the modules which we normally covers when providing online o level math tuition/ A level math tuition. There are some other modules like Decision Maths, Statistics and Mechanics.
Online O/A Level Math tutor - Online O/A Level Math Tuition is also offered for some additional modules these are FP1, FP2, FP3, M3, M4, M5, S3 and S4.
We know how important education is and we never compromise on the quality of teaching, therefore we hire highly competent tutors, who are also researchers in their fields, they are very good tutors, they have great experience of campus tutoring as well as online tutoring. They know how to teach students online, they follow our quality standards to keep the student on track and also help student to understand every problem efficiently. Our tutors do much effort which results a good marks in examinations, we also do O level / A level Math past papers revision for all the modules.
We are providing our online tutoring service all over the world, there are some countries currently we are providing online math tutoring, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Jeddah, Riyadh, UAE, Canada, USA, Pakistan, UK, India, Australia, Africa, London, Bangladesh, Bhutan, New York, Bahrain, Afghanistan, California, Europe, Asia, Bangladesh, Iraq, Japan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Cambodia, Iran, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, China, Brunei, Kuwait, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Mongolia, Laos, Nepal, Myanmar, Qatar, Turkmenistan, Russia, Oman, Jeddah, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Riyadh, Philippines, Singapore, Syria, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, South Korea, Tajikistan, Thailand, Yemen, and several other countries.


1. Vests have envelope sleeves so they can be taken down. I wish I had known this before I tried to carefully take off a poo infused vest over Max's head!
2. Sleeping until 7am would be classed as a lie in.
3. My washing machine would constantly be on. What ever happened to just 2 loads a week, now it's more like 2 loads a day. Minimum.
4. How someone's poo can be so fascinating. I can talk about Max's poos all day. What colour it is, how solid it is, how many times he goes in a day. Yuck I know!
5. How much I can do one handed. Emptying the dishwasher, making bottles, getting dressed..
6. I can now make a song and dance out of everything, his poos, smiles, when he's eating. I must have sang 'Let it go' about a zillion times.
7. Baby wipes are my best friend. I use them for everything!
8. And finally, how a little human being can be the centre of your world and you're the centre of their universe. Nothing can prepare you for the love you have for your child, and it's crazy how your love can grow each and everyday.
Lovely post – and so very true. Took me ages to realise that envelope-neck vests can be pulled down! And yes, we sing about absolutely everything too and the washing machine is permanently on. Goodness knows what I would do if it ever broke down!
I only found that out about envelope sleeves the other day! And I have Let It Go in my head all the time… Never even seen Frozen!
Nice post, all these are so true that it's unbelievable sometimes jejeje nice blog too.


Displaying 1 - 50 of 118. This list includes every page on UUA.org tagged with "Searching" or one of its subcategories. This page will reload after each filter selection to update the results and the remaining selections.
May we find unexpected ways to remember where we came from and imagine where we may go next. May we find touchstones of our pasts, and may they become a foundation for the future.
A dynamic collection of personal stories from people whose lives have been dramatically changed by Unitarian Universalism.
Ira Glass first brought the Rev. Carlton Pearson's story to This American Life. Now, with Chiwetel Ejiofor as Pearson, Glass brings the story to your television.
Image credit: Martin Sheen is the Rev. Oral Roberts and Chiwetel-Ejiofor is the Rev. Carlton Pearson in Netflix's film "Come Sunday."
May we find the courage to revel in the mystery.


text:
Q: Any performance concerns with sending a buffer array in express JSON response? My nodejs server consumes data from a nodejs JSON API. Some endpoints on the API return image data like so:
let buffer = await getImageBuffer();
res.set('content-type', 'image/png');
res.end(buffer);

Which works great. However for a number of complexity reasons, I'd love include a buffer array in a JSON response instead... like so:
let buffer = await getBuffer();
res.json({
  contentType: 'image/png',
  buffer
});

Are there any performance issues w/ including a buffer array in a JSON response like that? Is there any inherent performance benefit to using res.end(buffer) instead? The consuming server is also running nodejs, and will naturally JSON.parse() the response from the API.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


As Puerto Rico seeks to restructure nearly $70 billion in public debt, the island is hit with an outage, causing 3.5 million of its residents to be without electricity.
Maintenance crews worked through Wednesday night (Sept. 21) trying to restore power after a fire at a power plant blacked out the entire U.S. commonwealth, reports The Wall Street Journal. Officials hoped to restore service by Thursday morning, but some schools canceled classes for precautionary measures. Even the island's largest public hospital canceled elective surgeries and non-urgent appointments as government officials and private groups postponed countless of scheduled arrangements.
Natives doubt that electricity for the island will return anytime soon, saying the economic crisis has affected basic government services. The masses have taken to social media to lambaste the Electric Power Authority, noting they already pay bills on average twice that of the U.S. mainland.
I wish the US media was as invested in the power outage of Puerto Rico the way they are in our finances.


text:
Not-for-Profit, Award-Winning Community News and Views for Windham County, Vermont • Since 2006
This mobile menu is quite working yet! Your editor's doing his best. Check out the desktop site for links and our long-overdue site search function.
Click here to make a one-time donation to support your not-for-profit community news source
Sponsor a Library
Every week, The Commons mails newspapers to libraries and schools throughout Windham County, and beyond. Of course we do! Part of our mission is make sure that honest, award winning reporting is available to all, regardless of ability to pay.
Now you can help further our mission. Only $75 guarantees a library or school delivery of The Commons for a full year. Join our Sponsor-a-Library program today! Click here (and select "Sponsor a Library" when asked "Apply My Donation To.")
Order a T-shirt!
Now you can look great, and show the world your support of The Commons! Click here to visit our online store.
Help us thrive!
Make a recurring donation today.
Click to submit your news
• Send a story idea
• Publicize your event
• Send a press release
• Send to Milestones (obituary, wedding, birth, academic achievement)
Click to submit to Voices
• Write a letter in response to a story
• Contribute a Viewpoint, Essay, or Memoir
• We would love local artists to submit work to illustrate the section.
Basic deadline information
• Please book your ad space before Friday at 3:30 p.m.
• We are happy to design your ad. If you would like that, please make sure we get your copy by that time.
• If you are designing your ad, please send by Monday at noon.
Let's talk advertising
We'd love to help you with your ads! Please let us know a little bit about your advertising and your needs, and one of our team will be in touch promptly. You can also call Jen at 802-246-6397 Monday–Friday, 10 a.m.–3:30 p.m.
Regular ad features
Nuts 'n' Bolts (home improvement)
Public Notices (Legal Ads)
Front Page Box
Section Cover Strip Ads
More than a newspaper
The Commons is the public face of a larger nonprofit organization, Vermont Independent Media, Inc.
We came to life from the ground up in 2004, as members of the community became increasingly concerned about the consequences of absent corporate ownership of the daily newspaper in town and the need for local people to have access to the skills to create their own grassroots media.
VIM came to life lovingly and carefully thanks to indefatigable volunteers. The first public programs of the Media Mentoring Project began in 2005, and the first issue of The Commons was published in 2006. The newspaper was published monthly until 2010, when we began a weekly schedule. We are published on Wednesdays 51 times a year.
Recognizing that a vigorous exchange of ideas and information allows democracy to function and is the lifeblood of a community, Vermont Independent Media:
• creates a forum for community participation,
• promotes local independent journalism,
• fosters civic engagement by building media skills
through publication of The Commons and commonsnews.org, and through the Media Mentoring Project.
Nonprofit IRS filings
By law, every 501(c)3 nonprofit organization must make its IRS filings available to the public. Here are ours.
• Barry Aleshnick
• Lynn Barrett
• Peter Gould
• MacLean Gander
• Desmond Peeples
We attempt to keep our small newsroom open during the day on weekdays. But we are sometimes out covering the news, many of us are part-time, and we keep odd hours. We welcome your visit, but please make an appointment so you don't make a special trip.
Directions to the office
We're at 139 Main St., Brattleboro, Vermont (the Hooker-Dunham Building).
Office #601A: Newsroom
Office #604: Business/Advertising
Phone/email
Connecting all departments: 802-246-6397
Email for general inquiries: info@commonsnews.org
General newsroom address: news@commonsnews.org
General advertising address: ads@commonsnews.org
Urgent, desperate advertising emergencies: adalert@commonsnews.org
Recent PDFs
These PDFs are built from the final files that were printed and represent an accurate facsimile of the issue's content.
Please be warned: These files are very large and not at all suitable for dialup connections.
We maintain files of a limited number of back issues in our office. Please email info@commonsnews.org, and we will make them available if we can.
Search The Commons from 2010 to present
Historical novel images a 'murky and fascinating' history
Incorporating 10 years of research, a Putney historian/teacher releases 'Sackett'
Stuart Strothman will read from Sackett on Saturday, Nov. 17 at 4 p.m., at Village Square Booksellers, 32 The Square, Bellows Falls. For more information about the book, visit sackettbook.com.
By Nell Curley/The Commons
PUTNEY—There are stories throughout American history of early settlers' children being abducted and raised among Native tribes for the rest of their lives. However, some stories are less well-known than others.
Stuart Strothman's recently published historical novel Sackett tells a lesser-known story of Elizabeth Sackett, a Puritan child abducted at age 5 from Westfield, Mass., and raised among Abenaki Indians. She later married an Abenaki, and their son — known as Sackett — grew up to play a significant role in the history of Putney.
When Strothman, a lover of Colonial history who studied Native American history at SUNY-New Paltz, was co-authoring the 2003 local history Putney: The World's Best Known Small Town, he came across what he called the "murky and fascinating history" of the early life of his small town.
"I became interested in the namesake of Sackett's Brook, which runs through town," he said in an e-mail interview.
"I learned about the native hero Sackett, but my project director wouldn't let me print that the brook was (or even might have been) named after this French and Indian character, well known to the colonists for his raids," he said.
Since then, Strothman discovered a historical link, albeit an "unscholarly" one, in a reference published in the 1903 Kathan family history.
"Charles Kathan is widely regarded as the town's founder, commanding Fort Putney, built in 1753," Strothman noted.
Strothman said he also discovered in an old Westfield, Mass., history that Sackett was the son of an abducted 5-year-old girl who was raised among the Abenaki.
A decade's worth of research
One of Strothman's students at Guilford Central School, where he teaches Middle School grades, who was participating in National Novel-Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) inspired him to begin writing the novel.
"After three years of research, I was inspired by Ella McDaid to write the novel," he said.
Strothman decided to join her in the worldwide activity, wherein participants attempt to write a full-blown novel in 30 days each November. He wrote about 70 pages of a draft that month.
This proved to be only the beginning as far as the story was concerned. Telling the story with complete historical accuracy required an entire decade's worth of research into the world of Elizabeth Sackett and the Abenaki people.
"[The total research took] about 10 years," he said. "Luckily, I am fascinated by all of the material. Any primary-source documents I could find from that period, in the region of western Mass. and Vermont, were very informative and useful."
Strothman read about 10 firsthand abduction accounts as well as "lots of material from Abenaki linguist/historian Gordon Day."
Then, "based on my previous readings of history from historians like Colin Calloway and Marjorie Peters, I built the storyline, including numerous specific abduction stories such as the Deerfield raid of 1704, Nehemiah Howe (the real first settler of Putney in 1744), and Susannah Johnson, as well as tidbits from other accounts," he said.
Strothman was aided in his long story-writing process by Thurmon King, a Sackett historian. All Abenaki language used in the book was "carefully reviewed" by ethnohistorian John Moody at the Winter Center for Indigenous Studies in Norwich, Vt., and Hanover, N.H.
Finding detailed information on the life of Sackett, not to mention his mother (Elizabeth Sackett) herself, was difficult due to the small number of references to either Sackett in historical texts.
"There is only one brief reference to this Sackett as the namesake of the brook (there are no other early Sacketts in Putney), hidden in the Kathan text," he said.
Few references to Sackett exist, "some buried in French Canadian history texts, others in Abenaki oral history," Strothman said.
"The Westfield history tidbit is also very old and isolated, previously forgotten except by present-day Sackett family members, and there's only one specific reference to Sackett in better known American colonial history," said Strothman, who spoke at a Sackett family reunion in September.
Despite the lack of information on Elizabeth Sackett herself, the abduction and subsequent assimilation into a native tribe was not uncommon for children of Puritan settlers, he said.
"Elizabeth Sackett's story is fairly typical. There were many abductions, and a common intent among embattled Algonquin people [was] to use this method both to terrorize these Colonial invaders and add to [Native] population," he said.
The attrition in the native population was approximately 90 percent in all of North and South America by this time, and many abducted colonists, especially children, "went native," Strothman said.
"For some [abductees], the culture was much more relaxed and attractive than, for example, Puritan culture, and even some adults chose to make this shift," he added.
Strothman says he wants readers to know not only Elizabeth Sackett's story, but also the history of Putney's brook and how the land — and the native people in it — were changed by the "environmental devastation" wrought by the settlers.
"I want people to know that they were really here, with established villages in Westfield (Woronoco), Northfield (Squakheag), Vernon (Fort Hill), and Newbury (Cowass), just to name a few," he said.
"The settlers wrought environmental devastation on the region, clear-cutting forests for land management, damming fish streams, and ultimately blocking the entire Connecticut River itself (in Turners Falls, Mass., in 1798)," Strothman continued.
Consequently, he said, the settlers stopped "the huge salmon and shad runs forever," affecting both Turners Falls, Mass., and Bellows Falls, which he described as "hugely important fishing locations for Abenaki people."
Strothman is currently working on two new projects: one about adolescent counterculture in the seventies and eighties, and another about institutionalized patients in the 1900s.
"I would like to write a novel about adolescent counterculture in the 1970s and 1980s, and also one about people with disabilities who, having grown up in horrible institutions through the 1900s, break out of group homes with the help of sympathetic employees," he said.
"I have experience with both these topics," Strothman said. "I have not started either novel as yet."
Like what we do? Help us keep doing it!
We rely on the donations and financial support of our readers to help make The Commons available to all. Please join us today.
What do you think? Leave us a comment
Editor's note: Our terms of service require you to use your real names. We will remove anonymous or pseudonymous comments that come to our attention. We rely on our readers' personal integrity to stand behind what they say; please do not write anything to someone that you wouldn't say to his or her face without your needing to wear a ski mask while saying it. Thanks for doing your part to make your responses forceful, thoughtful, provocative, and civil. We also consider your comments for the letters column in the print newspaper.
We are currently reconfiguring our comments software. Please check back if you'd like to read or leave comments on this story. —The editors
{"commentics_url":"\/\/www.commonsnews.org\/site\/sitenext\/helpers\/comments\/","auto_detect":"0"}
Originally published in The Commons issue #178 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012).
More by Nell Curley


They can't get their heads through when I put their fav treat just outside the bars and they tried pretty hard but I am still paranoid... Has anyone else got a cage with 20mm bars? Are they ok?
That is gorgeous! I want to get one like that for Happy, but she's not super confident. Do you think a shy bird would do well with a big cage? She doesn't really need one, since she's out so much, but I'm a 'bigger is better' kind of owner.