Remaining Democratic government underground must also be drained from the swamp

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”

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 Canary

The Democrat’s Dolchstoßlegende – A Post-WWI conspiracy & Russia’s email hacking

1

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!

The Canary

We told you so! What’s next in Trump’s first 100 days

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.

The Canary

Trump’s vow to end mutual absolution between parties threatens Democrats

5

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 Canary

 

The unprecedented election campaign of Clinton versus Trump

The unprecedented election campaign of Clinton versus Trump

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!

2

 

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!

The Canary

 

Are we in the midst of the biggest election charade in U.S. history?

The Canary - election charade 2

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.

Why Trump Could (and Maybe Should) Be President

canary in the mine blog donald trump president of united states of america

Everybody can agree that Donald Trump’s persistent lead in the Republican presidential race creates potential conflicts within Republican Party ranks. Trump has shown himself to be rhetorically divisive. He sources his popularity to some degree from being divisive; yet, in our opinion, the Republican Party actually has a potential presidential candidate in Trump for the first time since Ronald Reagan’s successful initial presidential campaign, because he can make significant inroads into core Democratic constituencies.

The Republican establishment is increasingly horrified by the fact that Trump could really become the Party’s nominee. The same competing candidates who attacked him for threatening a third party bid during earlier stages of the campaign are now are suggesting that they may not support him should he become the duly elected Republican presidential candidate. Due to increasingly frantic leaks from the establishment, the idea that their convention may be deadlocked serves as reassurance and threat to those who believe that Trump would have little chance of becoming the Republican candidate in a back-room-brokered convention managed by the political establishment of the Party.

Such a brokered convention last occurred on the Republican side in 1948 when the Party elected Thomas Dewey, who failed to defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt in his fourth election cycle.

Too smart and too sophisticated a tactician, Trump immediately countered the threat of the party’s establishment, threatening to go rogue and run a third-party candidacy, which would doom not only the Republican presidential candidate but also Republican Senate and House majorities.

This leaves few options for the Republican Party establishment, because Trump would view any organized opposition against him as a cause-celebre to go to war. He could do that at almost no cost because more than enough of his loyal followers would vote third party to assure a disastrous Republican election experience in 2016.

If we know that, so does The Donald and so does the Republican establishment. Anybody who does not see Donald Trump as the principal Republican candidate to beat should return to reality.

Which brings us back to the original purpose of this column, which was to explain why Donald Trump could actually rebuild a dominant Republican majority in the country in 2016: one that has not been seen since the days of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan’s electoral success was built on his unique ability (as a former Democrat and union president) to attract a core Democratic constituency, – the so-called “Reagan Democrats.” Those were mostly white, lower-middle class, blue-color workers without college education who had never voted for a Republican candidate (and have not since).

Trump appears to attract the same constituency: maybe more so than Reagan. There are good reasons for that, considering the disastrous economic effects of the Obama years on blue color workers and the middle class in general. Add to this Obama’s divisive race policy and disastrous foreign and security policy and one observes a huge block of traditional Democratic voters not only staying home, but also switching allegiance for the first time since 1981, when the choice was between reelecting Carter or electing Reagan.

But Trump’s and the Republicans’ opportunity looms even larger than that and, once again, Trump’s actions suggest that he is astutely aware of it: for the first time in decades, a significant block of African American voters is up for grasp by a smart Republican candidate, and nobody is rhetorically better suited to go after that vote on the Republican side than The Donald.

Like white, blue collar America, Black America experienced a rather disastrous times during the Obama years. Paradoxically, the county’s first Black president’s policies lead to the most significant economic deterioration within the American Black community in decades, with poverty reaching a new high, incomes declining, youth unemployment at record highs and race relationships the worst since the 60s. The Black community, which, based on their loyalties to the first Black U.S. president, voted almost 100 percent Democratic in the last two presidential elections, will not show the same allegiance to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat candidate in 2016.

Increasingly, even liberal voices from amidst the African American community are reaching the conclusion that traditional liberal policies have not served their communities well.

And who can blame them?

If one looks around the country, cities under decade-long, one-party Democrat rule like Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore, African American communities are doing the worst. It is in those cities where most black youth are murdered every day, where schools are employment factories for union members but don’t offer even minimal education to children and the economic future of the youth is, therefore, the bleakest.

But the camel’s back was probably broken for the African American community with the apparent murder of the African American teenager Laquan McDonald by a white police officer in Chicago. It was not the murder itself that did it (after all, Chicago is the murder capital of the country for black youth), but the very obvious cover up by the decades-old Democratic administration of the city, which is run by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former Chief of Staff at the White House. Emanuel’s administration tried to silence McDonald’s family with a payoff of $5 million and attempted to hide an evidentiary video from the public for over a year out of fear that its disclosure could derail Emanuel’s reelection as major (does that sound like Benghazi deceptions before Obama’s reelection?).

The blatancy of this cover up demonstrated the decades-long abuse of Black America by the Democratic political establishment, which was never able to advance the community’s economic and social interests.

Mayor Emanuel’s administration’s behavior suddenly demonstrated to the world how little Democrats really cared about the African American experience. Just like classical Marxism, allegedly representing the best interests of the proletariat, they only used the proletariat to achieve ideological goals under a highly educated and privileged political elite. The liberal Democratic establishment always viewed African Americans as political fodder in their power struggles with the political right, guaranteeing them an almost unanimous voting block during election seasons.

By recently meeting with a group of African American ministers in New York City, Donald Trump demonstrated that he understands the political uproar that is currently ripping through traditional political relationships in Black communities all over the nation. Witnessing Black demonstrators in Chicago demanding the resignation of Obama’s prior Chief of Staff as mayor of Chicago is telling. Like everybody else, looking for a better future under true leadership, the African American community is ripe for the political picking by a Republican candidate who is convincing in persuading them that she/he offers new opportunities that will finally improve Black lives in America.

No Republican candidate is better suited to deliver this message than Donald Trump.

As we already noted in our last posting, barring completely self-destructive behavior by Trump or suicidal actions by the Republican establishment, it may be time to consider a Trump presidency a reasonable likelihood. As we also indirectly noted in our last posting, he would be well-advised to choose a female running mate. Considering Trump’s relative lack of foreign policy experience, we are increasingly betting on a Trump/Fiorina ticket. America could do worse than that!

Midterms 2014: Why The Republican Party Has Yet to Prove Itself

So, it has happened! Republicans captured the Senate, secured governorships in states that nobody ever imagined could turn red and further expanded the majority in the House. Obama, to quote a New York Times headline “vowed to cooperate within limits,” and the new Senate Majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, also promised a “spirit of compromise.”

All of this, of course, sounds promising, but when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is!

Continue Reading