The unprecedented election campaign of Clinton versus Trump

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , .

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!

What do Bill & Hillary Clinton have on Obama?

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics, Psychology of Obama and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , .
2

Something peculiar is going on in the Obama – Clinton relationship, and The Canary is not the only one wondering what that is. As based on multiple sources we reported months ago, there is no love lost between the Obamas, especially Michelle and Valery Jarret (considered the third Obama in the White House), and the Clintons. Rumors, indeed, suggested that Michelle and Valerie, with the quiet consent of the President, were actively conspiring to prevent Hillary from becoming the Democratic nominee for the November election.

For a while it, indeed, looked like a grand-scale political charade was underway, with the White House publicly fully supporting Hillary’s candidacy but, behind the scenes, planning an alternative scenario, which ultimately would force Hillary to end her campaign because of a legal quagmire. “Discovered” erased e-mails that were anything but “private,” as claimed by Hillary, and the shenanigans between the Clinton Foundations and the Department of State while Hillary was the Secretary, of course, offered ample opportunity. As even President Nixon found out during Watergate, the willful destruction of government property, especially in the process of the cover up of a crime, is considered obstruction of justice and, therefore, a felony. And, as former States Attorney and New York City Mayor Giuliani repeatedly publicly suggested the “pay to play scheme” between the Clinton Foundation and the States Department should be viewed as a criminal enterprise under the RICO law (Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organization Act), an idea also supported by former Attorney General Mukherjee.

But then, nothing happened to that effect, – except, of course, for the highly unusual 30-40 minute long unannounced (likely, meant to be secret) meeting between former president Bill Clinton and the current Attorney General on the evening of June 27 at the tarmac of Phoenix airport. Four days later, the FBI investigation (if there really ever was as serious investigation) was over, with the FBI Director rejecting a formal indictment of Hillary Clinton but, nevertheless, rather forcefully exposing her misrepresentations to the public and what he described as her highly negligent activities as Secretary of State in keeping the nation’s secrets. President Obama and his wife (though not Valerie Jarret), nevertheless, offered effusive praise for Hillary at the Democratic Convention who, despite almost daily new disclosures reinforcing her insincerity and earlier misrepresentations to the public, has ever since been cruising along in her campaign with apparently considerable safety margins over Donald Trump, the Republican candidate.

At least on the surface, the unmitigated support from the White House can, of course, be easily explained: The most frequently heard explanation is that President Obama is, simply, keeping his word after promising the Clintons in 2012 that he would support Hillary as his successor over Vice President Biden if Bill agreed to campaign for his reelection. There are those who argue that only Bill Clinton’s rhetorical mastery after that pulled Obama over the goal line toward reelection.

A second frequently heard argument is that there is really nobody but Hillary in the Democratic party who could win the November election. Had the Democratic Party’s leadership not conspired against him, and aggressively supported Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee of the party’s primary process would have actually been Senator Bernie Sanders. The party leadership, however, concluded that the country would not elect a Socialist president. Though Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz lost the Chairmanship of the party, and five other leadership positions were replaced after Vicky Leak posted internal e-mails, the media never reported that President Obama, until election of Hillary Clinton as the 2016 nominee of the party, was the actual titular head of the Democratic Party. He, and the White House, therefore, must have been fully informed about how the Democratic party leadership biased the primary election process in Hillary’s favor.

The Clintons also smartly exploited the leadership vacuum in the Democratic party by choosing as VP candidate, Tim Kaine, U.S. Senator from Virginia, a safe but not very inspiring candidate who, therefore, posed no real “threat” to her survival as the principal candidate of the party, even if a threat were to arise to her candidacy during the pre- election period. The party still would have no choice but to unite behind her. The press has been speculating broadly about a promised October surprise from Vicky Leak, including releases of further “erased” e-mails from Hillary’s drove of ca. 35,000 allegedly only “private” e-mails.

Our sources still claim that from the beginning of the primary season the White House really had favored Vice President Biden as a one-term candidate. The concept was that this would allow the grooming of a serious future presidential candidate in the position of Vice President. Emphasizing a desire for a future female president (other than Hillary), the V.P candidate was, therefore, expected to be a female, with Valerie Jarret, Senator Elizabeth Warren and even Michelle Obama being considered as possible candidates.

And, yet, it is Hillary Clinton who, despite strong headwinds, is successfully steaming full speed ahead with, supposedly, full support of the White House. This is that more amazing, considering that almost daily new disclosures about Hillary’s e-mails and the “pay to play” relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department have to be highly embarrassing for the Obama administration. Concerns about exactly such behavior by the Clintons (for which they have been known for decades) had motivated the administration to sign a formal written commitment with the Clintons, committing them to avoidance of any conflicts of interest once Hillary assumed the position of Secretary of State.

Not only is it now obvious that the Clintons breached this agreement, but released e-mails also demonstrate that they, with full intent, circumvented the will of the White House, when, for example, the Clinton Foundation assumed salary support for Sidney Blumenthal, the decade-long stooge of the Clintons, who the White House refused to offer a position in Hillary’s State Department. Though not employed by State, and not approved for appropriate security clearances, he, nevertheless, as e-mails demonstrate, served as a principal adviser to Hillary during her term as Secretary of State (he, inappropriately, also was given access to highly confidential national secrets).

Considering such targeted actions by the Clintons to evade the President’s will, one has even more to wonder about the unflagging support she is receiving. Indeed, not one unflattering word has been heard in months from the White House, on or off the record, in expression of anger about the Clintons’ duplicity. Their misbehaving, after all, also negatively reflects on the Obama administration.

Democratic operatives and pundits in a majority express the official party line that the White House is so glowingly supportive of Hillary because she is the only realistic chance of beating Donald Trump and regaining the Senate. A minority of Democratic officials, and always only off the record, are, however, also wondering, as we here do at The Canary, what the Clintons may have on President Obama that has “converted” the Obama White House into such a “dedicated” servant of the Clinton campaign. Even previously rather frequently heard anti-Clinton comments by White House staffers have been completely silenced.

Though on the left one can never underestimate the importance of solidarity to the movement as a potential motivating factor for the sudden expression of profound love by the Obamas for Hillary, we here at The Canary suspect a much more devious motivation. A more likely explanation may be that the Clintons are in possession of information, which, if made public, would threaten the President’s legacy.

We, of course, have absolutely no idea what that information could be. But, considering the many scandals the Obama administration suppressed over almost eight years through an unprecedented partisan Justice Department, delaying tactics in providing government records to Congress and courts, and unprecedented lack of transparency, any one of those scandals could be highly damaging, if blown open by a Clintonian revelation. What, for example, if it turned out that the instruction for publicly declaring Benghazi the consequence of a silly California movie about the Prophet Mohamed, rather than a terrorist attack, a few weeks before (re)election day, came from the President, himself? Or what if instructions for the IRS to discriminate against right wing and pro-Israel not for profits prior to his reelection came straight from the White House?

Could an appropriate warning from the Clintons to President Obama have been the real subject of the Phoenix airport tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the Attorney General? We will probably never know; but, knowing the Clintons, would anybody be surprised?

The Canary

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

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics, Elections and tagged , , , , , , , , .
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.

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

Posted on by in Blog, Domestic Politics and tagged , , , , , .
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.