Amid the flurry of Obama administration official statements promulgated by its various presidential and departmental spokespersons, reality is setting in. Despite the happy talk from Washington about ISIL (the Obama administration’s preferred acronym for describing the Islamic State), military facts on the ground cannot be eradicated by press briefings and political spin.  The recent and significant victories by the armies of the Islamic State in Palmyra, Syria and Ramadi, Iraq are a clear testament to the undiminished military efficacy and capability of the nascent caliphate.

Last  October I penned a piece in the Huffington Post, “President Obama Wages War on the Islamic State: Anatomy of a Disaster in the Making” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/president-obama-wages-war_b_5933642.html), in which I predicted failure for President Obama in his role of Commander-in-Chief in the evolving military confrontation with the Islamic State and its appointed Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I specifically highlighted four areas I saw as flaws in the President’s approach towards the struggle with the caliphate: 1. Propensity to underestimate the enemy and his capabilities; 2.Overreliance on insufficient means, primarily airpower; 3.Lack of a grand strategic vision, essential for prevailing in the conflict; 4. Intellectually myopic in recognizing the full dimensions of the threat posed to America by the Islamic State.

Regrettably, all the deficiencies I outlined seven months ago remain intact, as evidenced by the recent strategic victories gained by the Islamic State’s military forces in Syria and Iraq. It should be pointed out that the distance between Palmyra in Syria and Ramadi in Iraq is more than 600 kilometers, or nearly 400 miles. The fact that the Islamic State could simultaneously deploy major forces and prevail in those two widely separated battle arenas is concrete evidence to knowledgeable military experts of a highly competent military staff, and a mastery of the operational art of war. The choice of where the Islamic State advances or withdraws also pinpoints the highly strategic nature of the Islamic State’s military operations, which appear geared towards dominance of road networks, essential for controlling the large areas of Syria and Iraq currently claimed by the caliphate.

When America first began its confrontation with militant Islam in the form of al-Qaeda post 9/11, the jihadists were characterized and described as non-state actors. This description is no longer tenable in comprehending the challenge of the Islamic State. This entity may not follow the pattern of a traditional nation-state that participates in the international arena. However, in terms of its structure and the threat it poses, the Islamic State is in fact what it declares itself to be– a state, and one with an army with a skilled general staff, effective logistics and disciplined and highly motivated foot soldiers, able to employ combined arms, including armor and artillery support. Far from the “jayvee team” Barack Obama suggested as a metaphor for the Islamic State in January 2014, this entity has morphed into a most serious and capable military threat, transcending the conventional description of such Islamist phenomena as terrorist non-state actors.

While confusion and disarray reign within the circles of power in Washington, clarity seems to be the defining characteristic of the Islamic State. Despite attempts by U.S. policymakers with no comprehension of the history of Islam to downplay and distort its Islamic credentials, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State’s leadership circles are firmly welded to their historical narrative, which they fully comprehend. Their model is the Prophet Mohammed, who first brought his religious revelation to the Arabian peninsula through the sword. In the century after the Prophet’s death, his companions conquered the largest empire in history up to that time through an unparalleled application of religious fanaticism, combined with innovative military tactics. They were harsh and uncompromising towards the unbelievers, and it is that identical religious zeal that underpins the fierceness and tenacity of the soldiers of the Islamic State.

As the Obama administration gropes for answers to the challenge of the Islamic State, it appears that their new stratagem is to place their hopes in Shiite-dominated Iran, a theocracy that hates America as much as the Islamic State, and which itself is despised by the Sunni Muslim community al-Baghdadi and his caliphate represent. On top of the already monumental mistakes and strategic miscalculations President Obama has been the architect of in addressing the Islamic State, it seems that an even more dangerous error is in the process of being engineered–supporting the anti-American ayatollahs in Tehran as the protector of the Middle East from the Islamic State. I can think of no other policy decision by the Obama administration that would serve the highest hopes and aspirations of the Islamic State so well.

In the ongoing battle between the 21st and 7th centuries, it must be unfortunately concluded that the seventh century is in ascendance.

Hillary Clinton is running for President of the United States  in 2016. See the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW VIDEO Hillary Clinton Nude

The supposed sole superpower on the globe, the United States of America, has a government largely shut for business-thanks to the nation’s dysfunctional political establishment. It is as though Al-Qaida secretly brainwashed Congress and the White House, and gave them all a script to follow, one that inflicts as much harm as possible on the still-weak American economy.

For the past four days, President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House  John Boehner, have talked past each other, with the government largely mothballed with no budget approved by Congress. The hard-right of the Republican Party is using the shutdown of the government to pressure the Democrats to delay provisions of the Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as “Obamacare.” But in all fairness, the entire U.S. political establishment must take responsibility for this example of failed politics. And the worst may be just ahead. If by October 17 Congress does not approve raising the debt ceiling, currently at $16.7 trillion, a financial apocalypse may ensue.  Yet, America’s incompetent politicos seem more fixated on their narrow political agendas than preventing  what may be the mother of all economic crises.

If Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States  in 2016, see the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

YouTube

Hillary Clinton Nude

Hillary Clinton Nude

YouTube

HILLARY CLINTON NUDE

WALL STREET KILLS--A CHILLING NOVEL ABOUT WALL STREET GREED GONE MAD

To view the official trailer YouTube video for “Wall Street Kills,” click image below:

Wall Street Kills-Official Trailer

In a world dominated by high finance, how far would Wall Street go in search of profits? In Sheldon Filger’s terrifying novel about money, sex and murder, Wall Street has no limits. “Wall Street Kills” is the ultimate thriller about greed gone mad. Read “Wall Street Kills” and blow your mind.

The results of America’s 2012 presidential election were barely finalized when the political establishment immediately shifted gears, now focusing on what is being referred to as the nation’s “fiscal cliff.” This dire term involves a convergence of two hour glasses running out of sand. One is expiration of the so-called “Bush tax cuts,” the radical reduction in upper income taxation during the Bush presidency that transformed America’s fiscal balance sheet from questionable surplus (only surplus with fuzzy accounting on future Medicare and Social Security obligations). The other is the automatic cutbacks in federal spending that take effect without a negotiated bipartisan deficit reduction agreement

Washington’s massive structural mega-deficits are unsustainable. However, a radical, unplanned reduction done like cold turkey will crash the economy, resulting in a revenue shortfall  for the government, and the retention of a massive deficit.

How will the politicians in Washington DC behave? Like adults? Possibly, because of market terror at the alterative. However, with the Republican Party very bitter towards President Obama for having the audacity to defeat his GOP challenger, don’t be too hopeful that the GOP will put aside its political agenda for the national interest.

WALL STREET KILLS--A CHILLING NOVEL ABOUT WALL STREET GREED GONE MAD

 To view the official trailer YouTube video for “Wall Street Kills,” click image below:

Wall Street Kills-Official Trailer

In a world dominated by high finance, how far would Wall Street go in search of profits? In Sheldon Filger’s terrifying novel about money, sex and murder, Wall Street has no limits. “Wall Street Kills” is the ultimate thriller about greed gone mad. Read “Wall Street Kills” and blow your mind.

 

In my last post, I wrote:  “With 2012 a presidential election year in America, expect the Obama administration to spin economic data seven ways to Sunday in an effort to make things look more rosy. Thus, an unprecedented reduction in the total size of the American work force is twisted into a lowering of the unemployment rate.” Right on cue, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued an rose-tinted jobs report, showing a decline in the U.S. unemployment rate while the private sector was creating 200,000 new jobs in the last month.

No doubt, President Barack Obama would like nothing more than to reverse the disastrous employment picture in the United States. But he is caught in a trap, one only partially of his making. The American economic  order he inherited, and which Obama is unable to transform beyond minor cosmetic alternations, is a de-industrialized, financialized monstrosity. No wonder his minions are reduced to creative bookkeeping to show that jobs are in fact being created and an economic recovery is truly underway. The reality is that the percentage of Americans of working age participating in the workforce is at a record low, overall labor wages are stagnant or declining and there are no indications that this is being changed.

And what about Barack Obama’s Republican would-be challengers? GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney may boast of his “business experience,” though in reality the man from Bain Capital is nothing more than a poster child for the domination of financialization over the manufacturing sector in the United States. Other Republicans seeking the GOP presidential nomination such as Newt Gingrich are offering the same old mantra of infinite tax cuts for the mega-wealthy of America and trickle-down economics for everyone else.

Between President Obama and his GOP rivals, I see no one with the transcending vision and leadership skills to undertake the massive economic changes required to restore America’s economic and fiscal health.

For about two weeks, a seemingly spontaneous protest movement has evolved in the financial district of New York, dubbing itself the “Occupy Wall Street Movement.” Supposedly leaderless, there seems to be a core of ideologically committed individuals utilizing social media to empower a protest movement aimed squarely at the financial oligarchy that dominates the American political establishment, and particularly its economic and fiscal policymaking. The organizers of this self-described “leaderless” movement openly state that their methods are inspired by the protest movement of the Arab Spring.

On Saturday, October 1 more than 700 protesters were arrested by the New York Police Department. Previously, the NYPD had been accused by not only the protesters but media observers of engaging in brutality and unwarranted violence against peaceful protesters.  It is not likely that the mass arrests will attenuate these protests; the opposite actually seems to be the case.

Why is the “Occupy Wall Street Movement” protesting in Manhattan’s financial district? The website of the movement states:

“Occupy Wall Street is a leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that we are the 99 percent that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1 percent.”

While it is too early to determine the future course of this movement, and whether or not it is a flash in the pan or a self-sustaining phenomenon that could lead to a full-scale national, revolutionary mass protest movement, I think the following observation is in order. The arrest of 700 plus protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge in the brief period of an afternoon is not an everyday occurrence  in the United States. The fact that so many middle class and especially younger people are out on the streets openly railing against America’s financial oligarchy is at the very least a concrete manifestation that in the economic depression that has swept the land, the emerging generation of Americans has lost faith in the country’s politicians, feels alienated from the political culture and is increasingly hostile to those it perceives as the wire-pullers of the nation’s economic and political life and dispossessors of the future for the vast majority of Americans. Though the movement describes itself as leaderless, should a leadership emerge this movement has the potential to grow and morph into a revolutionary form of resistance to the ruling circles of contemporary America. If that happens, based on the police response to date, will those who dominate decision-making in America  unleash repression to suppress this movement? Time will tell, but as America’s economic situation grows worse and President Barack Obama’s mantra of hope and change becomes increasingly dysfunctional and irrelevant, the potential for massive social unrest in the United States grows and may eventually reach a point of critical mass, leading to unforeseen but potentially radical consequences.

As I predicted in my book, “Global Economic Forecast 2010-2015: Recession Into Depression,”  President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package has been a conspicuous failure in positively impacting the staggeringly high rate of unemployment in the United States. As is well known, massive job losses occurred in rapid order after the financial calamities of mid and late 2008. I projected in my book that at a vast price in expanded public debt, at best the Obama administration would stabilize unemployment rates at an historically high level.

Now we have the drumbeat of the 2012 presidential campaign sounding louder. Barack Obama is an astute politician, and knows his chances of being reelected to a second term are dismal unless he can tackle, or seem to be tackling America’s jobs crisis. In that connection, Obama has announced he will make a speech to a joint session of Congress on September 7. The speculation is that he will propose  tax credits for companies that add workers to their payrolls, and stimulus spending on infrastructure. With the Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, there is no chance he will get any serious legislation passed involving additional spending. At best, the Obama speech that is pending is an electioneering gimmick, and will prove as effective as the administration’s  overall economic crisis policy.  In the meantime, while the president drafts his speech and the political establishment engages in its usual partisan games, a growing group of leading economists are forecasting a double dip recession in most advanced economies, including the United States. That increasingly likely development will have more impact on the jobs crisis than even one thousand presidential speeches.

A new video on YouTube provides a unique overview of my political novel, “Sarah Palin Apocalypse Americana.” An animated version of Sarah Palin provides a synopsis of my book, based on Sarah Palin being elected 45th president of the United States after winning the GOP presidential nomination and defeating President Barack Obama in the general election due to a continuing economic crisis and high unemployment.

The link to the YouTube video of President Sarah Palin reviewing “Sarah Palin Apocalypse Americana” is here:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECeCKD1ZZxE

Within the past  few days, two of the four most important economic advisors and policymakers within the Obama administration have resigned. They are Peter R. Orszag, budget director at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, otherwise known as OMB, and Christina Romer, who chairs the Council of Economic Advisers. Remaining on the economics team is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, Director of the White House National Economic Council. Supposedly, Romer and Orszag are leaving of their own accord, to pursue “other opportunities.” Some speculate that policy differences with Larry Summers and even President Barack Obama were a factor. My own sense is that the worsening economic crisis in the U.S. as well as the overall global economic crisis were leading factors in their resignations, amid the increasing evidence that massive increases in public debt by Washington has not only failed to end the recession and restore robust economic growth; the risk of a sovereign debt crisis in the United States is now a reality.

The resignations of Romer and Orszag are the first ramifications of a failed economic policy. The more tangible result will be the upcoming midterm congressional elections in the U.S., which will almost certainly witness the Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives. From there, things will get worse, as America enters a double-dip recession, while Congress is mired in gridlock and imposes paralysis on the remaining two years of Obama’s presidential term.

As the economic clouds darken in America, it is likely that the resignations of Orszag and Romer are the crest of a wave.

When President Barack Obama, flanked by his leadership colleagues attending the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, made his dramatic announcement regarding Iran’s covert second site for uranium processing, he did so with a high degree of credibility. Not wishing to follow the fanciful nuclear allegations made by the Bush administration to justify its invasion of Iraq, President Obama and his advisors deliberated for several months with  the U.S. intelligence community before being persuaded of the true purpose underlying a secretive underground facility being constructed by the Iranian regime outside the holy city of Qom.

The carefully worded statement by the president telegraphs an unambiguous message to the international community, and especially to those nations most concerned with the dangers of nuclear proliferation. The configuration of the Iranian nuclear facility, apparently built in violation of Tehran’s commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency, makes it unsuited for any possible civilian purposes. However, once in operation, it would be ideally suitable for constructing at least one fission nuclear warhead per year.

Once the Iranian ruling elite realized that their secret facility was about to be unveiled, they hurriedly informed the IAEA that, apparently, they had regrettably forgot to inform the UN’s nuclear watchdog that a second uranium processing plant was being built. The fact that it was being constructed underground, below a mountain, was in no way indicative that this was anything other than a peaceful nuclear project, so claim the Iranian authorities.

No serious government believes the Iranian rationalizations, not even the Russians, who up till recently were opposed to imposing severe economic sanctions on Tehran. However, the apparently unassailable intelligence data on the nature of the nuclear facility near Qom has convinced even Moscow that sanctions may be warranted. That apparently is the hope of Washington, with the momentum now in place for a deadline that would place Iran under a sanctions regime by December, unless it is in compliance with all UN resolutions regarding her uranium enrichment program.

As laudable as President Obama’s intentions are on resolving the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, I believe recent history does not leave grounds for optimism. Economic sanctions are only effective if they are imposed on a regime that is susceptible to domestic public pressure. In the case of  a Iran, the fixing of the recent presidential election and brutal suppression of public protest at having their votes disregarded  is clear evidence that the theocratic elite in Tehran does not factor in public opinion when formulating policy. Furthermore, the scope of and immense financial investment being made on the Iranian nuclear project, at a time when that nation’s economy is experiencing high unemployment and rampant inflation, is incontrovertible proof that acquiring nuclear weapons, and the missile technology to deliver atomic warheads to distant targets, is that regime’s top priority.

For more than a decade, the international community has imposed draconian  economic sanctions on North Korea in an effort to contain Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program. The North Korean economy is a basket case, yet that reality has in no way restrained the nuclear ambitions of a regime that sees nuclear weapons as its best insurance policy for survival. The North Korean example would seem to suggest that when a dictatorial regime, immune to internal public opinion, is determined to develop nuclear weapons, economic sanctions are an ineffective policy response. There is every likelihood that Iran’s theocratic leadership is similarly immune to economic pressure, and sees diplomacy as merely a delaying tactic, to buy time while Tehran rushes forward with its covert uranium enrichment activity.

If in fact sanctions do not  impede Iran’s nuclear goals, what is likely to happen? Based on Israel’s aggressive non-proliferation policy  in the Middle East, and how they perceive the Iranian nuclear threat, it is unlikely they will remain passive if it appears that Tehran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power. If the only alternative to an Iranian nuclear weapon is an Israeli attack on Iran, there should be no illusions about the Iranian reaction. They are likely to strike back not only at Israel, but at every Western country, most probably by mining the straits of Hormuz and attacking oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. The economic crisis the world is currently enduring will be massively exacerbated, with oil prices rising through the stratosphere. It is not inconceivable that a long-term regional war will erupt, while the global economy enters a tailspin.

It is not pleasant to contemplate the strong possibility that economic sanctions will fail to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons program. However, the real world of geopolitics is often unpleasant, and frequently ugly. As painful  as it is, I hope that Washington is contemplating other options besides economic sanctions.  Otherwise, the Obama administration and the international community will, in effect, make a decision that the Israelis should handle the Iranian nuclear problem, and allow all the horrific yet predictable consequences to ensue.