After twenty years of increasingly flagrant in your face activity from personnel related to US politics, the IYF Trophy has become one of the most popular awards among the ruling elites.
The “in your face” title for this award indicates increasingly brazen political behavior instead of decorum and decency associated with serving the people--vs. serving special interest groups.
The worse it gets, the less they care.
This year's contest indicates intense competition among a number of entries from the political arena vying for top honor.
1. The Julian Assange case elevated from non-criminal to criminal:
Sharing equally in top position of IYF responsibility here, authorities in both the UK and the US have kept a journalist in prison in what numerous medical experts call conditions of “torture.”
These same governing authorities are quick to point to themselves as exemplars of “democracy”, which would include the right to free speech and to criticize government, while they cook up a case of “espionage” against Assange.
His crime? He published information from a whistle-blower showing agencies of the US government committing criminal behavior.
The “in your face” criteria here constitute defying essential principles of a free press, which has the duty to act as watch-dog on possibly rogue and criminal government behavior.
Authoritarian governments of the 1930s couldn't do it better.
2. Donald Trump swelling with self-importance and love of glory:
Mr. Trump is a formidable competitor here for the IYF award in several ways.
*A year ago Mr. Trump and his associates proclaimed Venezuela's Juan Guaido as president of that country, whereas Guaido was no such thing, and the current president, Nicolas Maduro, had been elected by more than a 60% plurality in a procedure verified by more than 30 countries internationally, and 150 of their representatives.
Mr. Trump celebrated Guaido again in his recent State of the Union speech.
*A month ago Mr. Trump arbitrarily gave the word to execute a top Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, and an Iraqi general, plus a number of others, because Soleimani was “a bad man”.
This action nearly led to an outright war and further chaos in the middle east, with Iraq still angry and restless at this time.
3. Mike Bloomberg using his billions to purchase the 2020 election:
A month after entering the US 2020 presidential election process, Mr. Bloomberg has, as of today, spent $401 million on TV and Facebook ads, plus donations to organizations he calls “philanthropic”, to gain support of grateful members of those organizations.
Mr. Bloomberg is now joining Mr. Trump from 2016 to indicate anyone rich enough can enter the political arena and use his/her bucks to support a candidacy.
Rumors swirl that members of the twitterati can earn money at $150 per individual by saying nice things about him. The few millions he has so far spent are pocket change against his estimated wealth at $60-plus billion.
4. The DNC fiddles and swaps and further plays with the nominating procedure:
The Democratic Nominating Convention, well-known for its shenanigans in 2016, is moving steadily ahead into a second round of gaming the nomination.
*Despite a rule that disallowed several candidates into the previous debates—based on how much money they had raised in contributions—this mandate was changed to allow Bloomberg a platform.
Bloomberg has raised nothing other than what he himself (the $401 million mentioned above) has thrown into his candidacy.
($401 million as a percentage of a total wealth of $60 billion is roughly the amount an ordinary person might spend on bubble gum in a visit to the local candy store.)
*Looming now, is the possibility the nominating procedure will allow the so-called “super delegates” into the first round of voting at the DNC convention next summer.
A "reform" following 2016 altered the role of the super delegates to the second round, not the first. That could change back right away.
Super delegates are special interest group delegates heavily weighted toward Establishment Politics.
The DNC is clearly worried about the surging Sanders, and ready to “protect the integrity of the Democratic Party of the USA”.
IYF judges are torn and twisting as of this writing as to which IYF defiance of decency best fills the bill.
They are experiencing sleepless nights, plus bitter arguments.
Meanwhile, the US voting public is thinking: