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!

The coming political revolution of 2016: Why the country is so fed up with politicians

1

There is an unusual unanimity in the media and among political pundits about the level of distrust with which the country has come to view the political class. It appears on the verge of outright “disgust,” threatening in an almost revolutionary way to obliterate a whole generation of professional politicians among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Establishment politicians from both parties still hope that interruptions and disturbances generating from a-political outsiders will collapse. We think they will be disappointed, especially on the Republican side, where discontent with politicians (even in their own party) is even more pronounced than among Democrats.

And now, after the government, Federal Reserve, Wall Street and media forecast slow but consistent economic expansion into 2016, should the Canary’s prediction of further economic weakness (The Canary predicted a recession in late 2015 to early 2016) coupled with disappointing Holiday Season sales, become reality, the public’s trust in all of those traditional societal pillars will, undoubtedly, further erode.

The country’s system of governance is now increasingly perceived as incompetent, corrupt or both, with widespread consensus that nobody looks out for the best interests of the nation, its citizens and future generations anymore. It doesn’t matter whether the Veterans Administration (VA) represents incompetence, corruption or both. What matters is that, even under a new administration, the medical care our veterans receive continues to deteriorate.

The VA is, indeed, a good example for how much governance has deteriorated. It was established in 1930 by Congress during the Hoover administration and, since, has become the largest integrated health care system in the U.S. with a whopping 152 medical centers. What makes this explosive growth of the VA system even more remarkable is that it occurred despite VA’s persistent failure to offer comparable levels of health care to other non-government health care systems. The medical community has considered the VA system a second-class health care system for decades.

Lesson I: Growth of government institutions is independent of performance. Once government services become the subject of criticism, every bureaucracy’s self-preservation mechanisms are activated which, if necessary, will include deception of public and Congress. The VA scandal demonstrates this, as senior administrators were caught falsifying appointment schedules to cover up the VA’s failure to offer veterans timely medical appointments.

Lesson II: Government institutions will lie and cheat to self-preserve. A new VA administrator was appointed, but recent media reports suggest that despite Congress granting it a considerable budget expansion, waiting periods for medical appointments are longer than ever.

Lesson III: Government institutions are incapable of self-correcting. While some senior administrators who falsified records were “allowed” to retire, none was indicted and none ended up in jail.

Lesson IV: As we witnessed in the IRS scandal for which nobody went to jail, the political class protects its own. Whether Democrat or Republican, administrations understand that executions of their programs are dependent on the good will of the bureaucracy. Prosecution of senior bureaucrats, therefore, is never advisable.

One would expect government to at least learn from its failures, but lessons learned at the VA did not lead to congressional reorganization of the VA. In good Washington fashion, more money was thrown at the problem by both parties, without any attempts at reengineering a failing government agency. Under Obamacare, the country doubled and tripled down on this failure by creating an even larger VA on steroids. It barely took two years to see subsidized insurance exchanges go bankrupt and insurance premiums rise far beyond inflation rates all over the cuontry. Even earlier supporters of Obamacare have second thoughts.

Lesson V: The political class does not learn from past mistakes because ideological believe systems and political expediency always trump empirical conclusions. In pursuit of empirically unproven programs, and in attempts to get elected (or reelected over and over), politicians from both parties are spending the country into oblivion. For the first time in the country’s history our generation is on the verge of leaving our children and grandchildren a country financially worse off than the one we inherited from our parents.

Corruption in the current political system is also well-demonstrated by the unbecoming spectacle of politicians after retirement or in between government positions being paid absurdly excessive speaker honoraria by commercial and political (often foreign) interests. Since no speech ever is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, influence peddling, the real motivation behind these payments is too obvious. Nothing demonstrates this better than the donations and speaker honoraria received by the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hillary’s personal worldwide kingdom of political corruption.

It allowed them to go from “being broke” a little over a decade ago when leaving the presidency (to quote Hillary), to controlling hundreds of millions of dollars of “donated” assets, which allows them (as a not-for-profit at tax payer expense) to finance their own and their daughter’s opulent life style and maintain a publically-financed political machine of political employees, salaried by the foundation.

Despite Hillary’s denials in her current election cycle, the Clintons are also the best practitioners of crony capitalism. Nobody has done more for the big Wall Street firms than the country’s leading political couple, and few have argued as successfully for the bailouts Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants received during the 2008 financial crisis.

Interestingly, just a few days ago, The Wall Street Journal reported that major U.S. banks, almost all bailed out by taxpayer funds, significantly decreased their loans to small businesses in the third quarter of 2015 while increasing lending to Fortune 500 companies. Crony capitalism is, indeed, doing very well, and is more alive than ever after seven years of the Obama administration. It is the middle class (I.e., small business owners) that is suffering for lack of all advocacy in Washington at historically unprecedented levels of crony capitalism in the U.S. Small businesses just cannot afford Bill and Hillary Clinton’s speaker honoraria!

By exempting themselves from laws, the political class has also been highly successful in carving out special legal standing for themselves while rewarding themselves materially in ways other cannot. Examples abound: For example, five sons of the former Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid worked as lobbyists to Congress during his tenure and, amazingly, no law or congressional rule considers this an illegal conflict of interest. Yet, others under similar circumstances would end up in jail. For example, physicians are prohibited from utilizing laboratories or x-ray facilities for their patients if family members hold even minimal ownership in them.

Another example: Until very recently members of Congress were fully protected from insider trading rules, for which hundreds of regular citizens go to jail every year. When voting for legislation that may benefit commercial interests, politicians’ disclosure mandates are extremely porous. Yet, to go back to examples from the medical profession, physicians and scientists who receive just a coffee mug from a Pharma company have to disclose this fact before giving a lecture to colleagues, upon publishing a scientific paper or when applying for a federal grant. It is perfectly permissible for members of Congress and local politicians to accept luncheon and dinner invitation (aside of political contributions, of course), or go on all expenses paid junkets at luxury hotel resorts and golf courses; yet, physicians are no longer allowed to accept free meals at or paid trips to professional medical conferences.

It should not surprise that more and more of the country is increasingly convinced that the political class is up for sale to the highest bidder, whether it involves the country’s security and foreign policy (while his wife was Secretary of State, President Clinton seriously applied for a permit from the Department of State to give one of his highly paid speeches in North Korea), the economic wellbeing of its citizens, – especially of its middle class and, probably most importantly, the future of our children and grandchildren.

The people’s evolving disgust is also spreading to the intellectual leadership of the country, mostly concentrated in universities, Hollywood and media on both coasts. They are held responsible for many of the recent societal policy changes that have overtaken the country at surprisingly rapid pace, including the legalizing of Marijuana, gay marriage and increasing legislative secularism. The public does not understand why smoking cigarettes in public makes them outcasts yet smoking a joint is widely promoted and considered hip. They see one great social idea after another failing while consuming billions of the country’s treasury, and while poverty in the country is at its highest in decades. And after having elected the first black president to two terms, they find race relations at a tragic new low.

The intellectual leadership of the country is held responsible for all of these developments because it, with increasing arrogance, is propagating empirically untested social experiments of unprecedented size and cost (Obamacare, legalization of Marijuana, global warming, etc.), while the country is slipping into deeper and deeper economic and social malaise. Such moments of national malaise and lack of political as well as intellectual leadership have proven dangerous in history, as they have led to fascism and other forms of dictatorships in the past.

In the current election cycle, a record field of Republicans announced their candidacy for president and we at The Canary were pleased by their youth and apparent riches of talent. Concomitantly, we were disappointed by the lack of talent among Democrats, which made Hillary Clinton’s selection a foregone conclusion (unless she does get indicted by the Justice Department after all, which after the bail out of the IRS by Justice, appears much less likely than we had thought just a month ago). Unfortunately, the Republican candidates, have been disappointing and unoriginal until now, except for the three inexperienced political outsiders, Trump, Carson and Fiorina. On the Democrat side, Hillary has been Hillary: an untrustworthy, lying political operative, who will do and say anything to be elected.

Just weeks before start of the official primary season, the country faces rather bleak options for the 2016 election. We at The Canary, would have never thought the day would come that we wished Mitt Romney was running again. But that’s where we are at this point because the only other alternative appears to be a Trump/Fiorina ticket.