Israeli Possible Futures and American Elections

 

There have been many numbers of articles predicting the fate of Israel should one party or the other take the White House next January. Where this early on it is a bit futile to be second guessing the American people, there are some concrete facts we can observe more generally and some rather specific. The most obvious fact is that Israel will likely fair better with virtually any Republican in the White House than either of the Democrat frontrunners. This has been the trend which has steadily become absolute starting with President George H. W. Bush who was far less Israel friendly than President William Jefferson Clinton. The Republican side is the most undecided; so we will begin with them, though there are some tantalizing consequences for discussion on the Democrat side.

 

The knowledge that Israel would be better served by any Republican than with either Democrat frontrunner is a no-brainer; there are still sufficient untested Republicans which leave things unsettled there as well. The top three caucus winners in Iowa are a case in point. Ted Cruz is as pro-Israel as anyone could ask for and would likely increase whatever aid Israel claimed to have or needs identified by United States Military assessments. Mr. Cruz is also the one most likely to ignore the current State Department being fully aware that the United States Department of State is closer to being an enemy foreign agent than an American foreign policy agency. They are so far into the pocket of whatever Islamic forces appear dominant at any given time ignoring the small fact that the United States can alter that picture with the slightest influence added by clandestine units in their military. Truth be known, even with Russian influence, the United States can alter any reality on the ground should it so choose. The drawback would be risking a general confrontation with the Russians which would require active duty forces in numbers sufficient to require Congressional approval and thus general media coverage. Much of the American as well as European and the World media will bend left as the media is generally more an agent of leftist ideological proponents and similarly predisposed on reporting on the Middle East which had been made evident by their misreporting or bias and slanted reporting on the Arab Israeli conflict which is decidedly anti-Israel.

 

 

 

 

 

Next down the caucus line is Donald Trump followed by Marco Rubio. Mr. Trump is completely untested in any and all policy positions and this is even more pronounced on foreign policy. Mr. Rubio is only slightly less of a mystery. The advantage Rubio has is he will likely follow the mainline Republican positions which had become more pro-Israel. Mr. Trump has talked a good game but his true heart is unknown and he is more likely to allow the State Department and the Pentagon along with whatever foreign advisors already exist within the government initially for his positions andthis would produce a period of time where he could damage Israeli relations even further. The question is how and if that would change when he received different and pressing information from the Israelis themselves and other contacts even to include business influence from people he has dealt with and gained a degree of trust. Rubio would also be somewhat untested and known to follow the advice he receives which then would rest heavily on his choice for Secretary of State and the weight he would put on Military and other foreign policy influences against the State Department. The one thing we know is Rubio is the candidate most likely to allow others from the Republican hierarchy to set his foreign policy. The decision, if one is honest, is still out on these two candidates who were definitive winners in Iowa.

 

Of the remaining herd of contenders who at this point are not even sufficient to be second tier and are closer to third tier with the one exception, the sole other Republican candidate to clear 2%, Ben Carson. Dr. Carson would necessarily need to rely heavily on experts and thus his positions would depend completely on who he appoints with the one obvious difference, the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Our feelings are Dr. Carson would be very similar to President George W. Bush than any other predecessor. Hopefully Dr. Carson could look at a map of the areas surrounding Israel and the Middle East and realize that Egypt is currently stable, Jordan is stable with a few big ‘if’s’ sitting on her northern and eastern borders and might need to rely heavily on Israeli intelligence and potentially military support should the Islamic State turn their eyes westward seeking a border with Israel which Jordan would provide. We hear the people with their maps out pointing to the fact that such a move would still leave the West Bank and Jordan River as impasses to an Islamic State assault on Israel. We feel it would be a near certainty that not only Israel would aid Jordan but so would Saudi Arabia and the other member nations to the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council). Currently the three main challenges which would face anyone stepping into office would be, in descending order, from the greatest threat down three steps are, Iran, Islamic State and the Iranian controlled terror networks of Hezballah, Islamic Jihad, to a lesser extent Hamas, and soon to be acquired Palestinian Authority which is likely to see a leadership change within two to three years as Abbas and family will take off for safer climes, probably somewhere in the United States under the witness protection agency’s assistance.

 

 

The remainders of the Republican herd who we can take the measure of are Jeb Bush and Chris Christie who both talk a good pro-Israel game but remain untested as being governors they had little to deal with outside their States and were able to leave the big foreign policy decisions to Washington D.C. Both would likely play Republican ballgame until they were able to put their own people in place. This would mean heavy reliance on the State Department and its Arabist and Islamist leaning viewpoint and having a disparaging and deleterious effect on Israeli ability to trust any recommendations initially from the White House. The long term relations would be heavily dependent on the people placed in positions such as Secretary of State, State Department Middle East experts and department leaders, Ambassador to Israel, Ambassador to the United Nations, Security Advisor and on.

 

The Democrat side of the equation has one twist and is otherwise underwhelming. Bernie ‘Feel the Bern’ Sanders has a voting record only the Muslim Brotherhood would applaud. He has proven to have adopted the erroneous leftist view that Israel is guilty of the two greatest sins, colonialization and capitalism. On the latter, Israel can only plead guilty and proud of it. On the foremost charge Israel is provably not guilty. First piece of evidence is the Holy Bible and in particular, Torah. The Torah other than the five books which chronical the early life from Abraham forward of the Jewish people but is the deed of ownership of all the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and south of the Litany River, though the current border with Hezballah, oops, sorry, Lebanon will suffice. Don’t you just hate when that happens. Then there are the treaties, Mandates and conferences which resulted in the League of Nations declaration of intent and right of the Jews to their own state located where the Biblical accounts define their Holy Promised Lands. Bernie may have been born into a Jewish family but that little fact never softened his heart nor gave him an appreciation of the necessity for the Jewish People to have a place of refuge where they may defend themselves if again the world decides it is best to either actively slaughter the Jews or simply not lift a finger to save those few where offers are provided for their potential to save such as the SS St. Louis. We can place Senator Sanders on the State Department side and likely to continue the Obama aggressive policies concerning Israel and even supporting an Iranian centric Middle East and North Africa. Bernie Sanders has not proven to be a friend of Israel.

 

Hillary Clinton is an easier story. She really does not think all that highly of Jews. This was most evident when after Bill lost an election she angrily screamed at the campaign manager calling him some kind of derogatory form of Jew with questionable parenting engaged in a lewd act and the campaign manager was not even a Jew so the word Jew in this racy and lewd epithet could only have been included as a further form of insult. This episode has been known in political circles and in Israel for quite some time, since early in Bill Clinton’s Presidency and is chronicled here. Additionally there is e-mailgate, really, e-mailgate? Haven’t we beat the gate means scandal after Watergate back during President Nixon’s administration where Hillary Clinton did a part of the research on this case which might mitigate this and no that did not mean miti-gate conspiracy though somebody from some conspiracy website will see gate and jump ugly to conclusions. Hillary has to win the Democrat nomination and the election or she is toast and the FBI is the toaster. Any normal individual, we know that normal can never be used when the Clintons are involved, would have been detained, tried, convicted, appealed, lost and be serving time in a Federal Penitentiary. Should she lose anything leading to the White House she will be indicted immediately. As far as Hillary and Israel, could we simply state oil and water for the comparison. No, need more? Sure, Hillary is the water and Israel is the highly flammable oil floating above and Hillary lights a match above the liquid line causing all the oil to disappear in a burst of flames and smoke and the water barely gets any warmer. Hillary fully supported every Obama policy regarding Israel and with gusto. Yes, she pandered to the Jews in New York when she ran for the Senate from New York. She wanted to get elected and also have additional campaign funds. Any pro-Israel comments can be placed as purely political and playing a particular audience though probably not that necessary as most of the Jews supporting Hillary do not support Israel either. Having met too many such leftist Jews, by birth only, who line up lockstep in the parade of the Democrat mainstream which has been as hijacked. This claim can be validated by inspecting after terrorists strike and they attempt to mitigate any terror act claiming the person was hijacked and does not represent the Islam they are familiar with. Hillary will only be less of a detriment to Israel because she will pay little if any attention to foreign policy decisions leaving the majority to aids and reliance on the State Department, need more be said. The big question is rapidly becoming who will be placed replacing Hillary should she become toxic either by actual arraignment or simply too much stacked against her and her base, as fickle as it may be, simply melts away and she becomes an unviable candidate. Joe Biden has ruled out a run and in keeping with the first woman President motif, we would suggest they would have Hillary give her delegates to Elizabeth Warren who would sweep Bernie Sanders aside in a tidal change potentially notifiable from the ISS, from the International Space Station. The tide would sweep across the Democrat primary voters and her coronation would take place at the Democrat National Convention. Her likelihood of taking the Presidency would be a complete lock should she decide to choose Bernie Sanders as her running-mate as that addition to her ticket would cement the youth vote, a vote which proved so vital to President Obama. Lastly, Elizabeth warren polls excellently with Democrats and the population as a whole. We expect this last scenario to play out as it appears that the FBI has built their case and are waiting for her to falter to pull the pin on the indictment grenade which would finish her candidacy, something the Democrat main controlling interests just might prefer as they watch her national polling numbers tank.

 

 

 

 

There remains one critical position which almost nobody from either side is likely willing to take except one. The position is that there is not and never has been an honest partner for peace from the Palestinian Authority and most definitely not from Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Fatah, the PLO or any other Arab influence with the possible exception of Egyptian President Sisi whose efforts to force a reformation for Islam with the transformative impact greater than that of the Protestant Reformation in Europe and definitely more dangerous and threatening to President Sisi’s continued health. One can only hope for his success and pray for his continued health. As far as Israeli policy, any administrations pushing any deal other than the full annexation of the territory of Judea and Samaria with a weeding out of the most dangerous of the terror operatives and their leadership. Additionally, Israel could offer any Arab desiring to leave and never return, meaning never ever return, in exchange for a generous dispensation including purchase of their properties and holdings and a generous award of separation which would likely to exceed their expected lifetime earnings with the understanding that should they or any member of their family return they would be executed on sight. Any pushing of the deader than a doornail policy of two states living side by side in peace, security and prosperity is not realistic especially looking around the Middle East and North Africa and one sees a sea of turmoil and conflict with little comfort in sight for most of these conflicts and with all eyeing attacking Israel as a potentially solid option. How erroneous and self-destructive such a policy decision would prove, the fact it bears mention is a testament to the insanity which has soaked the region.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Sad Truths About American Election 2016

 

The one constant around the world is that everywhere one hears discussions about the upcoming 2016 American elections and the talk immediately turns to the potential Presidential results and how they will either improve or ruin the plans of our leaders, nations, areas, threats, trade or economies. The truth is that trying to divine the thoughts of the American public and how they will vote for in the Presidential elections is complete folly, especially if one is using the relations between in foreign affairs as their criteria. While across the globe the United States foreign policy or lack thereof is of vital importance and in many instances potentially critical and even deadly, the American public usually cannot see any further than their wallet. Yes, there are numerous Americans who understand and even use a fair degree of foreign policy knowledge and positions of Presidential candidates, I must sadly report that when we left the United States that number decreased and even with our presence in the voting booths the people voting their wallets probably outnumbered foreign policy wonks by a thousand to one if not a hundred-thousand to one. This is why the Presidential debates only have one which presumably is advertised as pertaining to foreign policy. The truth is that most of the questions end up actually being turned inside-out, upside-down and twisted all around until it actually sets the candidates attentions to foreign situations as it pertains to the effects it might have on the budget or social programs at home. Still, the choice of who will be the next President of the United States will have a determining effect on every part of the globe; it will just be whether it will be for better or worse. So, what should we seek as far as the most preferentially positive effect generally around the globe?

 

The usual rule of thumb is that a Republican President will be more involved in foreign policy than a Democrat President. This does not necessarily mean this is preferential as it also depends on whether the Republican President has advisors and other assets which drive a thoughtful and thoroughly researched foreign policy or if they have a more seat of the pants reactionary policy. An example of the former would be President Dwight David Eisenhower who though often derogatorily called a do nothing President actually was responsible for the reconstruction of Europe and the Far East policy after the fall of Japan and much of the American ascendance after World War II all while the United States enjoyed some of its best economic growth years in its history. Another President who also did well largely due to advisors was John Fitzgerald Kennedy whose advisors were very knowledgeable and who when tested by Russian President Khrushchev over the Cuban Missile Crisis set a strong and potentially dangerous posture of no nonsense strong response that eventually led to the Soviet Union to retreat from Cuba removing their missiles. Kennedy also answered the Soviet initial success and leads in the start of the space race to set the goal as the Moon and challenged the American space industries and NASA with, “We choose to go to the Moon! … We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” On the other hand, the United States has had Presidents from both parties who were unmitigated disasters when it came to foreign policy though I will not shame any by naming them and instead allow each to choose their own examples. From the juncture where many currently observe the two Administrations under President Obama, these could easily be defined by numerous presumably traditional friends of the United States, who would, if choosing to be totally candid, would describe these as total disasters with potentially the worst yet to come. Then there are some of the worst mischief makers and oppressors or would be conquerors who likely would heap praise on President Obama’s choice to not challenge anything which might prove challenging or potentially difficult and demanding taking a principled stand.

 

So, first off, let me assure those who might be misled into believing that the Americans generally have begun to awaken and see what a disaster President Obama has been for the world as a whole, if it were somehow made possible for President Obama to run for a third term, the American public would likely reelect him and even the Jewish voters who might claim that Israel is one of their top concerns would still vote for President Obama by an easy majority likely near to sixty-five percent against thirty-five percent voting Republican. Actually, there would be a sizeable percentage of the Jewish voting public who would refuse to vote Republican and simply stay at home which is the same as voting for whichever candidate proves victorious. With this established, this fact does not bode well for the Republican Party if the American public, which is made predominantly of ‘low-information voters’ who vote pretty much as they are advised by such criteria as, my family have always voted Democrat/Republican/Whig (OK, most families who had voted for the Whig Party have moved on since then), what’s his name on Comedy Central/Saturday Night Live/the Late Show/Family Guy/South Park character, Media such as ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/CNN/PBS/MSNBC, print media, favorite personality/close friend/boss at work/union boss or whatever ridiculous source even to include Tarot Card reader’s advice, are the mainstay of the voting public which as time has passed has become more the norm. This is partly why the politicians fight over voting rules such as removing people from voter rolls through validation techniques to remove those who have moved, died or not voted in decades or the need for picture identifications, motor voter laws, and even register to vote outside the polling place and then enter and vote or permitting prisoners to vote even from death row as there is no area not pursued as a voting base that the party who thinks something is to their advantage will not use to the utmost of their ability. So, we have established that the American voting public is not necessarily the pure cerebral and reasoned public which Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, or James Madison envisioned, though probably Benjamin Franklin may have had the right attitude and worldly experience to realize how far the electorate would eventually slip. So, now what?

 

The next is choosing who will most likely be the candidate for each of the two major parties. Let us start with the Republican Party and the myriad of candidates there seeking to be the candidate chosen to represent the party in the elections in November 2016. The one thing we are assured is that the Republican candidates will mostly be breaking what President Ronald Reagan called the Eleventh Commandment, do not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans. The Republican candidates will refuse to bow out until it becomes mathematically impossible for them to win the nominations and some even then will continue just in case they can make a surge from out of the blue once the delegates are freed to vote however they choose, usually around the fifth ballot or later. With all the candidates, and a fair number of top ties candidates, it is quite likely that the Republican Party may reach its convention without any one candidate with sufficient numbers of delegates to win on the first or second ballot and there may be five candidates who are all actually closely matched in candidate count with none even remotely close to a majority or even a resounding plurality. This might lead to a lengthy and harshly fought convention which will go into the fourth day or beyond without reaching some resolution or producing a candidate. There appears now that Jeb Bush will have a loyal set of establishment delegates and the ‘movers and shakers and moneyed establishment supporting him while the Tea Party and Christian Right will be divided amongst a core of select candidates including but not limited to Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson and Scott Walker; with the likes of Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal will all have a base of support which may be sufficient to retain their hopes and finally there is Carly Fiorina who as the sole woman, might receive additional support as she is the only candidate against whom Hilary Clinton would not have the advantage of gender running to be the first American female President. The end result is whoever eventually survives the scathing attacks and fevered battle with the nomination may find themselves limping into the actual Presidential election race as damaged goods sorely injured by their own party. Oddly enough the one person who might mostly escape such infighting and scorn from their fellow Republicans might be Carly Fiorina simply because should she avoid falling prey to the gotcha media assaults most Republicans face, she could be the one without any damaged armor and slide between the barbs and arrows and prove the strongest candidate of them all and take the nomination with minimal damage and able to rally the Republican base and establishment as she belongs to neither but can make overtures to both.

 

That brings us to the Democrat Convention and the presumed coronation of Hillary Clinton as the ‘deserved one,’ the ‘chosen one.’ From the very beginning I have not believed that Hilary Clinton would survive to become the Democrat Party Presidential candidate in 2016 or ever as if she is cast aside this time it will be for good. Hillary Clinton’s most formidable and undefeatable opponent is Hillary Clinton of campaigns and offices past which will eventually make her untenable as a candidate. Her time as Secretary of State will tie her inexorably to President Obama’s disastrous foreign policy and much of the blame for President Obama’s failures will be heaped upon Hillary and she will be unable to escape this baggage. Additionally there will be the baggage from the entire Benghazi debacle, and even worse, her hearings before the Congress where the immortal words were uttered never to stop echoing in many ears where Hillary, referring to four dead Americans including two men whose heroic efforts became known making the inaction simply unacceptable and un-American and now forever tied to her stating, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” The absolute cynicism of her caustic remarks and the bald faced attempt to brush off any responsibility and to make any questions in this area as improper as that the reason for the hearings was not about those who gave their lives presumably in service of their country and for a mission which originated within the State Department, but to allow Hillary Clinton to be cleansed of any wrong-doing and to be vindicated and be lauded for striving to assure that such a situation never again presented such a deadly situation. The line of questions seeking to pinpoint blame was, in Hillary’s mind, completely out of bounds. Between Benghazi, the e-mail scandals, the missing records, scrubbed and sanitized memos and communications, Clinton Foundation contributions and influence peddling from her position as Secretary of State, foreign monies which likely were derived as payments for favors, the rise of Blumenthal communications concerning Libya where he had business interests while advising Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State as well as numerous other scandals yet to surface, and Hillary Clinton is damaged even beyond the capability for the Democrat Party to attempt to repair her to make her presentable to the public. All the baggage which has been in the mainstream news about Hillary Clinton was originally being exposed now early in the process and before she announced her intentions to run for President such that it could be labelled old news already beaten to death if brought up during the campaign by the Republican side. The problem is that there seemingly is no end to the scandals as they just keep jumping out from everywhere. As the media and Democrat operatives keep attempting to put these scandals to rest and tie up all the loose ends they run into another problem and then a scandal which follows as night follows day and there is no putting this to bed as more and more loose ends keep appearing and the Hillary apologists are beginning to become somewhat short tempered as their patience dies. In the end Hillary Clinton and former President William Jefferson Clinton will be required to hang up their hopes of returning to the White House until Chelsey is old enough which will be fairly soon, so they should get her elected to some office, governor of the state of their choosing, Maryland sounds easy as does Massachusetts.

 

So, with no Hillary as their candidate, who can the Democrats turn to as their best bet? There are a number of people which have been mentioned as potential replacements should Hillary self-destruct. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley though his having also been Mayor of Baltimore might be a slight drawback, Vice President Biden who has a history of foot-in-mouth disease but actually would be solid in foreign policy as even if a threat he made in a speech by his going off-script the adversary would never know for sure whether or not Old Joe might actually follow through. Bernie Sanders has also declared his interest and though we agree on very little I admire his forthrightness and honesty which are very admirable qualities and he can be counted on to do what he says and say what he means. Then we have Andrew Cuomo and Howard Dean who both are known for mouths beyond their control, Al Franken also has given a definite maybe which is quite comical as well as noncommittal though he and Biden debating would make for great comedy, and finally Ms. Elizabeth Warren whose credentials, or lack thereof, are equal to those of President Obama when he took up the mantle of Democrat candidate for President with a few critical differences making her worthy of a deeper look.

 

Though Senator Elizabeth Warren has claimed she is not running, this may not be left as her choice as she has a sizable supportive following without ever overtly seeking such. She is a far superior believer in the true Progressive way of which President Obama campaigned upon in his initial 2008 campaign. She is well spoken and needs little prompting from any crutches such as a teleprompter. Senator Elizabeth Warren is quick on her feet, knows what she believes and is very comfortable in stating her views unequivocally and with great passion. She is a strong supporter for individual rights though she does appear to place too much emphasis and burden upon government for protecting individuals from failure by providing a broad and sweeping system of safety nets and she does not appear to be adverse to a guaranteed minimal wage for everybody whether they be employed or not. She favors Obamacare with some modifications making it more workable, not less dependent on government as her adjustments would bring Obamacare closer to a single payer health plan than as it currently sits. Senator Elizabeth Warren is a believer in Keynesian economics where the government is the principle engine behind the economy. She also is opposed to free trade much of the time claiming instead to stand for fair trade which she has not fully explained. She is a through and through socialist progressive and like Bernie Sanders says what she means and means what she says and always sticking to that exact path. At least she would not produce any big surprises as the Democrat candidate or a President if successfully elected. Her largest area which is unfortunately untested and unknown is foreign policy. Here she would be untested and undefined and until such could be filled in she should not be taken as a serious candidate. But as I explained, foreign policy is the last and least of things on the average American’s mind so it is quite likely that with her populist political talking points and her appeal to those dependent upon government Senator Elizabeth Warren would likely gain a large popular appeal and could breeze to the Democrat nomination once Hillary Clinton realizes she had already failed and failed miserably, but it remains to be seen if she will even be willing to be dragged thus appearing to have the nomination and run in the primaries thrust upon her rather than actively sought. Though I have little in common with Senator Elizabeth Warren’s viewpoints and fear her lack of foreign policy experience or even exposure, I find that she would have little problem being elected as the next United States President, her biggest obstacle would be attaining the Democrat nomination and that is something remaining to be seen. The final note is that the next President of the United States will be the one who emerges as the victor in the Democrat nomination and only give the Republican candidate a one in three chance at winning the general election. But there is still a race to be run and we have to have the race just to prove every prognosticator to be so wrong it is embarrassing.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Hopes and Ponderings Concerning Aftermath of American Elections

Let us start with Congress with the presumption that the Republicans will control the Senate as well as the House of Representatives. The Republican leadership, in particular the establishment mainstream Republicans, will very likely misread the opportunity and expectations of them by the American public and especially their base voters and spend all their energies and debates in attempts to bring down President Obama whether through directly attempting to impeach him and failing or by endless hearings against President Obama himself and other members past and present of his administration. There is a definite probability that they would attempt to bring former Attorney General Eric Holder, assuming he ever is replaced which nobody appears to be in any great hurry to find a replacement. Between Fast and Furious and the rest of the litany of assumed misdeeds the Republicans could spend most of the last two years of President Obama’s terms simply holding hearings on Holder and Benghazi, their two favorite subjects for attacking the President. Such a scenario would be the greatest waste of time and missing of opportunity in the history of politics.

 

The Republicans, should they control both houses but not have sufficient numbers to override Presidential vetoes, they should still pass the bills which the American people would see as taking responsible approaches to actually get the government out of the way of the economic engine allowing it to adjust to the situation as it exists and slowly rev up and begin to produce jobs and economic activities which have been moribund for the past six years plus back to the last year and a half of the George W. Bush Presidency. They should not bother trying to repeal or modify the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) as such would be a waste of their efforts and not actually showcase their agenda should they ever gain the kind of situation which President Obama enjoyed and squandered; the complete control over the entirety of government with the White House and majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives plus their Senate majority was filibuster proof as they held over sixty seats. The Republicans should have debates to display their agenda for two to three weeks on each grand piece of legislation which would make the core of a government where they were allowed to freely pass their agenda. By having open hearings and discussions they might also be able to get the media to cover these legislative deliberations, even should they attempt to portray them in a negative light, thus placing them before the American public. Granted such a plan depends on the ability and desire of the American public to care about the workings of the Congress and actually see through any slant in the media. Unfortunately, we are more likely to witness the Republicans waste their opportunity and as a result the Democrats might be able to win back the Senate and maybe even the House of Representatives as well as retaining the White House as a result of the 2016 elections, but more on this later.

 

President Obama after the election will have even less reason to remain even slightly limited by the Constitution. The President has already shown complete contempt for the Republican controlled House of Representatives and even to ignore the will of the Democratic controlled Senate. This disregard for any convention or limitation will permit President Obama to work on completing the rest of his promises to fundamentally change the United States of America. His intent to mold the United States in his image is just another reflection of his narcissism which knows no boundaries and once the final election which might have any effect upon his ability to rule and rule absolutely, President Obama will finally be cut loose to enact the edicts by Presidential use of a pen and the phone to those minions who he can rely upon to take to the streets if necessary and cause sufficient disturbance to allow him to continue writing executive order after order as he intends. The areas where President Obama would have the greatest influence should he choose is in the makeup of the General staffs of the military since he can request the resignation of any General at his pleasure. He could then replace them with people from within the military who would be more accepting to his desires to limit the use of the military outside of the United States and with no regard to consequences or treaty start redeploying all the military personnel either back home or someplace where their capabilities are least necessary such as the deployment to West Africa to presumably assist with the fight against Ebola. Exactly how combat troops are supposed to engage and fight microscopic targets is beyond my meager ability to figure, but I am sure the President gave them orders which would address such difficulties. But the military is the least of the areas where President Obama could enforce his will.

 

There is the possibility that should the Democrats lose their majority in the Senate that during the current Senate’s lame duck session that Senate Majority Leader Reid could call them back to Washington for an emergency session because a number of Supreme Court Justices had retired such as Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg who is of advanced age and suffers from cancer. Then President Obama could send candidates for ratification and as Senator Harry Reid used the nuclear option which now allows for confirmation of Presidential appointees to only require a majority decision for cloture, thus ending any chance for filibuster, which forces an immediate confirmation vote. President Obama and such a session of the Senate could very easily place as many new and young very leftist Justices onto the Supreme Court as Justices retired allowing such appointments. President Obama could really let loose the Environmental Protection Agency and other Cabinet posts and departments to enact regulations using even the flimsiest of authorizations from actual laws. We might even become aware of other surprises ensconced within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mega-legislative effort. Remember former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comment that we had to pass the bill to find out what was in the bill. What else might be hidden in the language of the over two thousand pages of the legislation now law that would allow for more malfeasance.

 

The real problem that arises is, with a compliant Attorney General willing to simply cover up for anything the President or members of his Cabinet or other appointees placed throughout government as well as those willing to act in accordance with the instructions of those who will be tasked with carrying out any edicts or regulatory enactments which originate with the White House and relayed down a pipeline of favorable and willing and dependable government employees, all of whom will have sufficient time in service, this allows all to be completely safe from consequences while performing and enacting new regulations. This is an area where President Obama and his appointees making up his administration including the various Secretaries in the Cabinet as well as the numerous Czars which were not reviewed nor approved by Senate confirmation remaining un-vetted yet holding great power and sway with some even having more influence than the Cabinet Secretaries who presumably held the sole supervisory over their departments thus allowing the President to rewrite regulations almost at will. Exactly how far President Obama is willing and planning to go in remaking the United States is an unknown that will be revealed over the remaining two years of his Presidency with the first hints coming early next year and possibly a little earlier, all depending on election results and how willing the President might be and how far he would risk going. Whatever the coming events, it will prove to be interesting and the only actual unknown is how exciting and challenging these coming events will prove. As the ancient Chinese curse goes, “May you live in interesting times,” and we certainly do live in such times.

 

While we are predicting the future let’s peek into my crystal ball and see who might end up as the Democrat candidate for President in the 2016 election cycle. I might try to also include the Republican candidate but with so many unannounced and almost ready to runs, that prediction is going to have to wait until the field has been decided though I can predict which politicians will not be the republican candidate. A quick rundown of the Republicans who will not appear on the 2016 final ballot are Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie and Speaker of the House John Boehner for starters. Now on to the Democrat candidates and the somewhat controversial prediction. Almost everybody has placed their chips on Hillary Clinton and with her latest appearance and her apparent new improved look, they have good reason to choose her. The problem is the voice and the speeches are still Hillary Clinton who was initially tainted by some claiming she only married Bill to ride his coattails to prominence and this was only reinforced by her run for Senate in New York, a state where she had barely taken up residence. Then Hillary Clinton has also been tainted by her inept performance at Secretary of State and especially the Benghazi slaughter of four Americans including Ambassador Stevens and his aid as well as two security personnel and former seals who put up a heroic fight while waiting for the cavalry to come over the hilltop in the nick of time. That cavalry never was permitted to even mount up let alone ride to the rescue. The echo of, “What did you do during the Benghazi nightmare and why was there not more security since you knew there were potential problems and a definitive threat of an attack?” Because of the obvious candidacy of Hillary Clinton and the reputation of the Clintons for not appreciating those who choose to oppose them, just ask the Obamas, there will be few Democrats rushing to compete with Hillary Clinton. There is one exception and she is a candidate whose history depicts a woman who is not easily cowed and is bold enough to have made obviously fictitious claims in order to gain scholarship and more and now sits as United States Senator for Massachusetts. As you have likely guessed or know, the person I believe will win the Democrat nomination for President is Elizabeth Warren, Native American deriving her family having Cherokee and Delaware Indian heritage, listed herself as a minority in professional directories. Yet she questionably denied that she ever tried to gain a professional advantage through her lineage. Still, Elizabeth Warren has the near perfect liberal progressive credentials and presents herself well and has a similar experience to President Obama when he first sought the White House against Hillary Clinton as well. Further, the United States low information voters and some easily swayed voters who simply desire to be a part of the majority and will follow a sweeping trend just to be considered in with their peer groups will vote for a good story line repeated in the media and popular culture spots such as social media and comedy news reports. This may prove to be a part of the Presidential election cycle should either party, particularly if it is the Democrats, should place a woman at the top of their ticket, then they may tap into the desire of the American public to crash and break down all of the remaining barriers they perceive to remain in their societal history. Despite the seeming problems which have accompanied President Obama, there will be those more than willing to place a woman in the White House; and not only a woman, but a Native American woman making Elizabeth Warren potentially the first self-proclaimed Native American President and the first woman President. How can that combination possibly lose? My only request is please do not kill the messenger if this message proves incorrect; I tried and took the chance and now wait for the dice to stop spinning.

 

Beyond the Cusp