Author: Redactor

Antonio Feliciano was fired from his job at 7-Eleven the other day. Was he showing up late? Watering down too many slurpees? Nope. Mr. Feliciano stopped a robbery attempt.

He may well have saved his own life and the lives of others in the store. 7-Eleven officials say disarming the robber goes against company policy, which states clerks should just hand over the dough rather than risk their lives for the store.

7-Eleven is worried about lawsuits, of course. When the woman who tried to rob the store pointed her gun at a cashier and cocked the trigger, Feliciano did not have time to pore through the 7-Eleven company policy on whether to stand by and do nothing when your co-worker is about to get blown away. Instead, he acted courageously. For his courage he has lost his job, thanks to 7-Eleven’s idiotic “zero tolerance” policy.

Antonio did give the money that was demanded from him. He wasn’t risking his life for the store. But when the robber pointed the gun at Feliciano’s co-worker and cocked the trigger, the thought that flashed in his mind was: “Oh God, I’m never going to see my kids again.” Acting on instinct, he grabbed the gun away from the robber and wrestled her to the ground. Good for you, Antonio Feliciano.

We are turning into a nation that worships victims and punishes heroes. When you think about it, maybe it’s the robber who’s really at fault here. 7-Eleven, give Feliciano his job back. And give him a raise.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

I’m beginning to feel sorry for poor little ole George Nethercutt. His case of Potomac Fever is becoming critical. You remember Mr. Nethercutt of Washington state he’s the fellow who pledged to serve no more than three terms in Congress.

That was three terms ago.

Citizens were so inspired that they defeated 30-year incumbent and House Speaker Tom Foley, sending Nethercutt to Washington in his place. But now Nethercutt is breaking his word to the voters.

Republican officials have generally circled the wagons for their incumbent, but some put principle first. One is former U.S. Senator Bill Armstrong of Colorado. Armstrong honorably served two terms in the Senate and then returned home.

In 1994, Armstrong sent Nethercutt a $1,000 contribution. So this year when Nethercutt broke his pledge, Armstrong was not amused, saying Nethercutt betrayed the very principle that got him elected.

When Rocky Mountain News columnist Peter Blake reported Armstrong’s change of heart, Nethercutt’s political handlers zipped off a quick e-mail berating the columnist: “Check your facts. We have no record of Senator Armstrong ever contributing a dime to this campaign.”

Armstrong forthwith produced the canceled check from 1994. Nethercutt should be embarrassed. But no, his campaign launched another e-mail attack on the columnist. “Flail away . . . no one reads your drivel in Spokane . . . you and your writing will wind up on the ash heap of history.”

The ash heap of history, huh? Perhaps one day Mr. Nethercutt might find a spot there. But then, how would the world ever spin without him?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

One claim made by term limits supporters is that limits will provide more opportunities for women and minorities to play a larger role in the political process. Term limits also promise greater representation.

As a white male, I have nothing against white males, believe me. I also think someone’s principles and policies are what count, not their gender or race. But that’s just one more reason why I love term limits. Let me explain.

Term limits create open seats by not allowing any person to monopolize a seat of power. Open seats are much more competitive because the unfair advantages of incumbency are removed. So rather than “giving” advantages to women or minorities, or drawing districts designed to elect specific minorities, term limits simply open up the process to competition. Term limits allow the marketplace of ideas to create a situation where our representatives are more likely to represent us both in terms of their background and in terms of their goals for the future.

Under term limits, Maine and Oregon elected their first women speakers. Since 1990 when California voters passed term limits, Latino representatives have more than tripled. Says Hilda Solis, a state legislator, “When I came on in the Senate, I was the first Latina. Now, there are five. Never in U.S. history has that happened in such a dramatic fashion and so fast.” No quotas, no preferences, no need for affirmative action. Just fair and competitive elections. Term limits bring diversity the right way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Isn’t it great when our representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, reach across the aisle and work together? Frankly, no. It seems that the cause that usually brings the career politicians together is grabbing yet another pay raise.

And they’re at it again.

The leadership of both parties has been huddling together to discuss an issue near and dear to their career-oriented hearts. Seems $141,300 just isn’t enough to make ends meet. They need another $4,600. Party bosses agreed not to use the pay raise vote against any member of the opposing party. Challengers who dare raise the issue of the raise will lose all financial and tactical support from their parties.

Majority Leader Dick Armey says: “There is a good faith effort on the part of both leaderships to protect the members.”

Protect the members? For heaven’s sake, from whom? From you, of course. You’re one of those mean ole voters who might hold it against a politician who repeatedly raises his pay against the wishes of 80 percent of the country.

Not only should members of Congress vote no, but they should also follow the great example of Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. As a term limits supporter, Sanford walks the walk by limiting himself to three terms. The same goes for the pay raise. When he failed to stop the last raise, Mark donated that amount to the Treasury to retire some of the $5.6 trillion national debt Congress has run up.

Let your representatives hear from you.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Politics is boring. I can just hear my kids saying that, usually when I’m turning the TV to what they affectionately call “one of Dad’s arguing shows.”

Well, I like a good debate and politics is not boring, doesn’t have to be anyway. Still, I know that most Americans are on my kids’ side, not mine. That’s why it was nice of the folks who produce Monday Night Football to start their program later for a couple weeks. That way we can see some more of the political conventions without missing football.

Boy, politics vs. preseason football, I think we know who wins that battle. Certainly political folks will complain about the public not being involved enough in politics. But it would help convince people that politics isn’t boring if it weren’t in fact so darn boring much of the time. I have to admit that myself.

Take the conventions, please. When I was a kid political conventions were a lot more exciting than they are today. Back then no one knew for sure who would end up on top at the convention. Today everything even the choice for vice-president is known in advance. In the past, presidential campaigns were marathons, not sprints. Delegates were fought for and their support had to be maintained through the convention.

Today, everything is decided within a few weeks of the primaries and delegates just go to party. Perhaps the powers that be like it this way. But it’s not good for democracy. Politics is too important to be boring.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, they say.

But that’s never been the view of our rulers in Washington. Members of Congress have been riding high lately after taking decisive action on campaign finance. They have passed legislation against groups known as 527’s.

In point of fact these profiles in courage did nothing to even the political playing field. They merely attacked speech that might cause some poor voter somewhere to perhaps re-think voting for an incumbent. These groups that run ads talking about candidates and issues are being forced by Congress to disclose their donors.

Think this sounds swell? Think again. Politicians said they wanted the people to see who was contributing. But that’s not really so; it’s the congressmen who are desperate to know. You see, while PACs give over 90 percent of their money to incumbents, 527’s and other groups often target the records of incumbents in their ads. Thus they benefit challengers.

That doesn’t sit well with career politicians. If donors are publicly revealed then those in Congress can target them with all manner of legislative and regulatory threats. And get this: Congressional leaders say that their Leadership PACs are exempt from this new law. Exempt. The benefits of disclosure apply to everyone but them, supposedly. It is to laugh.

Reform Congress-Style: One incumbent protection scam after another. We need a reform from the people term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

We get taxed so much while we’re living, it seems kind of overkill to tax folks when they die. To me, dying is bad enough already.

And now Terence Jeffrey, editor of Human Events , gives us another reason to oppose the death tax: it’s murdering the First Amendment.

Nearly half of the nation’s family-owned newspapers have been lost in the last few decades. These independent papers are being gobbled up by corporate media behemoths like Gannett and the Tribune Company, and the result is fewer independent voices in the media.

One reason these family-owned papers are disappearing is clear: the high death taxes simply can’t be paid without selling the business. That’s not right. A person who works hard to build a business does not deserve to have that business destroyed.

The government disagrees. Jeffrey points to a former IRS commissioner, who says, “. . . the owners of these things don’t look objectively at the world. I own it, I want to pass it on to my son, why should my son have to pay an estate tax to get it? [The owner] looks at it as his possession. The IRS, however, views those taxes as a means for some equalization of wealth nationwide.”

Two philosophies here. One says individuals should be free to gain from their hard work; the other says government should grab it away so we can all be squashed down to the same low level. For richer, for poorer, till death do us part. And part . . . and part . . . and part . . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

While Rep. Tom Coburn hasn’t faced much competition in his two re-election campaigns, this year is very different mainly because Tom Coburn isn’t running for re-election.

During his first campaign for office, Dr. Coburn pledged to serve no more than three terms in Congress. And he’s keeping his word. When asked about politicians who break their commitments, Coburn says plainly, “I don’t want to be associated with people who tell the American people one thing and then do another.”

This year finds a crowd of seven Republicans vying for the seat opened up by Coburn. Most admit they wouldn’t be running except for Coburn’s retirement. But one candidate, Steve Money, says that Coburn shouldn’t be leaving, that his departure allows someone “less able and less effective” to go to Congress.

Steve Money claims great admiration for Coburn, but he ignores Coburn’s number one strength. The longer you stay in Washington, according to Tom Coburn, the further you get away from the views of the folks back home “One of the reasons I’ve been such a pain in the neck up [in Washington] is because I knew I was leaving.”

Rep. Tom Coburn is arguably the best member of Congress. He’s courageous in taking on special interests and even his own party. He guards our tax dollars. All because he’s not a politician. And he hopes his replacement is not a politician either.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Should you lose your job for celebrating the lives and courage of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence? Jeff Jacoby did.

On July 14th he was suspended without pay for writing a column about the fate of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Why? Can’t the liberal Boston Globe tolerate a conservative celebrating those who fought for our freedom?

The Globe claims that because Jacoby failed to mention that others have covered this topic before, he committed a breach of journalistic ethics.

Yep, Jeff Jacoby is not the first person to celebrate the willingness of the Founders to lay their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the line. So hang him.

Political columnists of every ideological stripe tend to revisit the same themes over and over again. They’ve all still got their jobs, God bless ’em. Rush Limbaugh, Paul Harvey and yours truly are among the many who have written about the noble sacrifices of the men who signed the Declaration.

Jacoby points out that one bibliography on the subject shows works dating back to 1820. Even the Boston Globe agrees that Jacoby used his own words and his own research to write the piece. So what’s going on? Why is the good name of Jeff Jacoby being pointlessly poisoned? I have no idea. Nor do journalistic watchdogs from across the political spectrum. Why don’t you call the Boston Globe and ask them?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

His political consultants if he had any would say he’s crazy. But he’s my kind of crazy.

Gary Morsch is a candidate for Congress, a serious one. He’s running in a competitive three-way Republican primary in Kansas’s 3rd district. But in the closing days of the primary, Morsch won’t be doing any campaigning at all.

No, instead he’ll be training with his National Guard Unit in Missouri. His Surgical Hospital Unit has been placed on alert for possible deployment in Kosovo later this year.

Dr. Morsch probably could have gotten out of the duty. There’s a process to request an exemption. But said Morsch, “That doesn’t fit my philosophy, which says I shouldn’t get special treatment because I’m running for office.”

Morsch is not the usual politician. In fact, he’s no politician at all. He’s a medical doctor who founded Heart to Heart, an international relief agency that has provided over $160 million dollars of medical supplies to those in need across the globe. His goal is to be a citizen legislator, not a career politician. That’s why he took the Term Limits Pledge limiting himself to 3 terms in Congress.

He does what’s right, not what’s politically expedient. Leaving the campaign trail at such a crucial juncture may mean that Morsch loses in his bid for Congress. But I can’t help thinking that by keeping his commitment to our country, Dr. Morsch has already won. And his victory is one we can all celebrate.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.