Categories
insider corruption media and media people

Major Media’s Cricket Chorus

“How is this not a subject of bigger concern in the country?” Emily Jashinsky asked last week on The Hill’s morning TV program, Rising.

Hunter Biden’s “addiction and dysfunction are the public’s problems, too,” explained Jashinsky, culture editor at The Federalist, “given that Hunter was wrapped up in an influence-peddling operation in which he traded on his father’s name to carry out lucrative business deals.”*

“That makes the sad work of reading his personal correspondence crucial,” she added, “given that his father is, you know, the president of the United States.”

Jashinsky pointed to items gleaned from Hunter’s bountiful laptop, which reinforce a narrative — first advanced during last fall’s presidential campaign and corroborated by a former business partner, but then and now ignored by most media — that Hunter not only profited off his father’s position, but also provided kickbacks to “Pop.” 

In a text Hunter sent his daughter, complaining that he doesn’t “receive any respect,” he elaborated: “I Hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family Fro 30 years. It’s really hard. But don’t worry unlike Pop I won’t make you give me half your salary.”

Now the New York Post’s Miranda Devine informs, “[W]hat we do know is that, while Joe was vice president, Hunter routinely paid at least some of his father’s household expenses” . . . which the headline dubbed “daddy pay care.”

“In a healthy country, our free press would be highlighting the Biden family as the very picture of elite corruption,” offered Jashinsky. “They would be pushing relentlessly for answers to the questions these emails continue raising.”**

“Instead, it’s mostly crickets,” in what she sadly called “this era of media corruption.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* “The Justice Department is investigating the finances of President-elect Joe Biden’s son [Hunter], including scrutinizing some of his Chinese business dealings and other transactions,” the Associated Press reported last December. 

** In May, The Guardian disclosed: “Former FBI director Louis Freeh gave $100,000 to a private trust for Joe Biden’s grandchildren and met with the then-Vice President in 2016 ‘to explore with him some future work options,’ emails reveal.”

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption national politics & policies

Dystopia de la Brazile

“When will the check arrive?”

That’s what “voters want to know,” former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace yesterday.

Not whether President Joe Biden is dodging the media’s questions, as Wallace had inquired of his panel of Washington experts, after explaining that Biden now holds the modern record for longest time as president without facing reporters in a news conference.

“Well, it’s no surprise,” offered Jonathan Swan, national political correspondent for Axios. “It’s an extension of what he basically did throughout the campaign, which was very minimal — he basically didn’t subject himself to extended, tough questioning.” 

GOP strategist Karl Rove went further, arguing, “he’s just not up to it . . . at the age of 78 he’s lost a few steps and he’s not going to look good in a news conference.”

But Brazile was having none of it. Citizens are laser-focused, she contends, on being shown the money . . . and really aren’t too concerned as to whether their commander-in-chief, the sleepy fellow in possession of the nuclear codes, might be suffering something approaching early dementia.

People do like money. But to what degree is she really correct? With palms greased will the public look the other way? How many votes have Democrats bought?*

Don’t think Brazile is alone, either; as I pointed out recently (“Big Bucks Buy Votes”), too much of Washington actually thinks purchasing apathy, support, votes is how Washington should work.

They marvel as modern political statecraft transcends the hubbub of bread and circuses with electronic direct deposits of spendable cash into bank accounts. But with the same hoped-for result.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* And ask the same question of Republicans who voted for sending similar checks to everyone when they controlled the Senate and the White House last year. 

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption partisanship

Member-Directed Funding

“Congress is about to bring back its secret weapon,” CNN headlined a column yesterday.

Congress? Weapon

Be afraid. 

Be very afraid. 

“Earmarks are back,” Chris Cillizza immediately informs readers . . . you know, “what is technically known as ‘member-directed funding.’” 

Before you can say “terrible idea,” the cable channel’s editor-at-large does admit that “members securing money for pet projects in their districts could go wrong.”

Yeah. Right. Has gone wrong. Will go wrong. Is wrong.

“This is a sneaky big deal,” offers Cillizza nonetheless. “And a massive win for party leaders of both parties.”

Cillizza argues that it was a big mistake for Speaker John Boehner and the GOP leadership in Congress to take away their ability to reward individual congresspeople by stuffing a couple multi-million-dollar pet projects into the budget. What’s not to like for an incumbent politician? They get to hand out money right in their districts, with their name attached to it. 

As long as a member of Congress plays ball.

The way the party bosses say.

In return, that incumbent can likely stay in this nation’s heralded leadership for years, decades.

When “you realize that in taking away earmarks,” explains Cillizza, “Boehner robbed party leaders of their most potent weapon to keep their rank-and-file in line on key votes.”

Is it even plausible for the functioning of our democratic republic that “party leaders” — nowhere mentioned or given any power in our Constitution — leverage our tax dollars to essentially buy off our representatives in order to keep our representatives “in line” on other important votes?

No.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption Voting

Democrats’ Shadow Play

There is more than one way to rig an election.

Sometimes all you need is a monkey wrench. A little chaos might help you get your way.

Last February 3, Democrats voted in the Iowa caucuses, placing Bernie Sanders in the lead. But a major “foul-up” occurred. “The state party was unable to report a winner on caucus night,” explains Tyler Pager at Politico, “the mobile app to report results failed to work for many precinct chairs, the back-up telephone systems were jammed and some precincts had initial reporting errors.”

The chaos certainly did not help winner Bernie Sanders, disabled from making publicity hay while the sun shined. There was enough darkness for democracy to die in.

The Iowa Democratic Party commissioned an audit to throw some belated light on the brouhaha, and the results are in: the Democratic National Committee is mostly to blame. 

“According to the report, the DNC demanded the technology company, Shadow, build a conversion tool just weeks before the caucuses to allow the DNC to have real-time access to the raw numbers because the national party feared the app would miscalculate results.” But the DNC and Shadow used incompatible database formats, spawning chaos. 

In a generous mood? Call it sheer incompetence. 

But the mess sure . . . smells . . . suspicious.

“The caucuses are a cherished tradition for Iowans,” reports Reid J. Epstein at The New York Times, “but an increasing number of national Democrats say they are outdated and undemocratic.”

Well, they are when you make them so.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption

Titanic Hits Ice Cream

A recent email from Amy White of MoveOn.org — an activist outfit that got its start defending Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions — theorized that, this election, “the GOP strategy to win is to use their billionaire donors to flood battleground states with fearmongering, racist ads. . . .”

The snuck-in assumption that Democrats lack Billionaire Donors is important, for the actual Trump strategy is to attack Democrats for their rich elitism. A Trump campaign ad targeting Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous-like ice cream obsession is quite powerful.

And Pelosi’s flaunting of expensive freezers and confections is not mere fluke.

You see, Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) also smarts from recent revelations that she had flouted California lockdown rules and mask-wearing mandates to illegally rendezvous, sans mask, at a hair salon, speakeasy-style.

While MoveOn’s Ms. White seeks to “put an end to Donald Trump’s authoritarianism,” what she seems oblivious to is her own side’s elitism.

As shown in Pelosi’s hometown. San Francisco’s government-run gyms catering to police officers, judges, lawyers, bailiffs, and paralegals have been open for months — while privately owned exercise establishments serving the hoi polloi have been shut down the whole time.

“It’s shocking, it’s infuriating,” one gym entrepreneur told a TV station. “Even though they’re getting exposed, there are no repercussions, no ramifications? It’s shocking.”

But it’s not. 

Trump got into office because he was seen as an outsider. Insiders like Pelosi and Frisco “public servants” have special rules for themselves, while sticking it to the rest of us. We peons. We outsiders.

It’s old school classism, as in the “classless” Soviet Union or Marie Antoinette’s France.

Not a good look.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption

Right Here in Corruption City

Former FBI assistant general counsel Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty earlier this week to making a false statement to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) — often called the FISA court after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that created it.

“According to the court documents, Clinesmith inserted the words ‘and not a source’ into an email from a CIA liaison that described the relationship between Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page and the CIA,” reported The Epoch Times. “As a result, an FBI special agent relied on the altered email to submit a warrant application to the FISC, which described Page as a Russian asset without disclosing that he was an approved operational contact for the CIA who reported on his interactions with Russian intelligence officers.”

While one intelligence agency, the FBI, was declaring to a FISA judge that Carter Page was not a source for the intelligence community and, instead, was a likely Putin stooge, Page was briefing another intelligence agency, the CIA.

A big fib told to surveil him.

And by extension the Trump campaign.

“At the time, I believed that the information I was providing in the email was accurate,” Clinesmith told the court, “but I am agreeing that the information I entered into the email was not originally there and that I have inserted that information.”

Had the forgery been accurate, of course, it is still clearly wrong to surreptitiously alter documents being presented to a judge. 

Whatever one thinks of President Trump — innocent victim of a 22-month special counsel witch hunt or Putin asset still at large — we can all agree that this is Trouble with a capital T and that . . . doesn’t stand for Trump.

It rhymes with D and that stands for Deep State.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.  


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access insider corruption

Corruption, an Opportunity

The president’s July 30 tweet reminded us he can still manipulate the news cycle.

“With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”

Reactions ranged from dismissal to outrage — and assurances of no schedule change — but the most obvious thing about the tweet was the “made-you-look” aspect. By focusing on the rapid deployment of new-old technology (the mail-in ballots) to handle the public’s panic over the nowwaning pandemic, Trump does several things at once: 

  • shows a danger posed by lockdowns and social distancing;
  • calls attention to an under-investigated phenomena, voter fraud and vote-count rigging; and
  • provides an excuse for his possible failure in November.

The Democrats think this latter is the biggest danger. But they’ve a funny way of raising the alarm, considering their recurrent expressions of fear that President Trump “wouldn’t step down” if defeated.*

Apparently, calling into question the election mechanisms of the states is considered ‘going too far’ — not because it isn’t worth being vigilant about, but because questioning election integrity might undermine regime legitimacy.

The bipartisan regime.

The Epoch Times’s article on the president’s tweet concludes this way: “Attorney General William Barr said last week that there is ‘no reason’ to believe any election rigging is afoot.”

Well, Trump himself provided the reason: it is an obvious opportunity

An opportunity that some unscrupulous partisans no doubt have little compunction about trying. Making the subject not worth discussing — a ‘third rail’ — actually makes election corruption more likely by removing some of the risk.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* Hillary Clinton came out with this again, in July. This sort of thing does not help Democrats much, for it was they who, last time, could not accept defeat: antifa violence at the inauguration, followed by fake scandal-mongering and a failed impeachment made them look worse than their target.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption term limits

The Limits of Corruption

Another corrupt, term-limits-hating, careerist politician bites the dust. 

“Federal prosecutors say Republican Speaker Larry Householder and four others — including a former state GOP chairman — perpetrated a $60 million federal bribery scheme,” reports the Dayton Daily News, “connected to a taxpayer-funded bailout of Ohio’s two nuclear power plants.”

Last year, a citizen-initiated referendum campaign sought to give voters the final say on the legislature’s $1.5 billion baby. “The relentless machinations of HB 6’s backers,” Cleveland Plain-Dealer columnist Thomas Suddes points out, “kept [that] repeal effort launched against the bill off Ohio’s ballot.”

At a news conference to explain the arrest of Householder and his co-conspirators on racketeering charges, federal prosecutors detailed some of the ways the scheme illegally blocked last year’s referendum effort. 

Now, the rush is on to repeal House Bill 6.

Mr. Suddes is correct that “[t]he legislature also won’t be OK till voters amend the Ohio Constitution to make it easier to place issues on the statewide ballot for up-or-down votes.” 

But when he goes on to argue that term limits are “part of that problem”?

The only thing Ohio’s term limits need is to make the limits lifetime — forbidding legislators from returning after a timeout. Householder had previously been speaker from 2001 to 2004. “While he officially left office due to term limits,” informs the Plain-Dealer, “he departed Columbus amid an FBI investigation that closed without charges.”

Householder also came to our attention back in March, when he called Ohio’s eight-year limits “pretty oppressive.” Before the pandemic, he was pushing a ballot measure designed to weaken the term limits law and serve until 2036 — foreshadowing what Putin* did later in Russia. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* I referred to them as “two pols in a pod,” but now, Householder reminds me more of former Arkansas State Sen. Jon Woods, who after sponsoring a deceptive ballot measure to weaken term limits was convicted on multiple felony charges and is serving his current term in prison.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment insider corruption national politics & policies

The Thick Blue Line

In Minnesota — Land of 10,000 Lakes and a startling number of police killings of unarmed, innocent citizens, including George Floyd — the state legislature has “passed the most expansive criminal justice reforms in the state’s history.”

Though acknowledged as merely a start, it is good news. As are the banning in many major departments of neck restraints, and the kibosh placed on chokeholds in the nation’s capital.

Yet Eric Gardner died back in 2014 when placed in a chokehold by New York City police. Nevertheless, there is still no NYC ordinance against it. Numerous other cities also lack any such rule or law.

Why the glacial slowness?

It isn’t for lack of popular support. According to Cato Institute’s newly-released poll, 63 percent favor ending qualified immunity for police. 

So what is it? It’s no mystery; we do not need a blue ribbon investigative effort.

The Washington Post reports that reform-minded police chiefs and city officials “have repeatedly . . . run headlong into two formidable and interconnected forces: veteran officers who resist these efforts and the powerful unions fighting discipline.”

That second factor is key. Police unions are “powerful,” in part, because their political endorsement at election time means more to elected officials than the reform-minded opinions of mere citizens. 

So when you learn that, at the federal level, Democrats recently killed all prospects for criminal justice reform this year, you will not find yourself flummoxed.

Sadly, this festering dysfunction in our representative system corrupts our justice system.

And deaths result.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability insider corruption local leaders national politics & policies Voting

Bring the Bozos Home

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced Sunday he has covid-19,” The Washington Post reports, “and four other GOP senators are quarantined. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) disclosed Monday that her husband, too, is infected with the virus.”

Social media was not uniformly brimming with support for the Kentucky senator, of course, and some folks noted, in earnest horror, that the Republican who had been shot at by a Bernie Bro and blindsided by his deranged Democrat neighbor had dared work six days in the Senate after being tested but before receiving his diagnosis.

He should have been sequestered!

To let the big “stimulus” packages sail through Congress?

But there are work-arounds.

“We should not be physically present on this floor at this moment,” argued Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday, urging the Senate to facilitate social distancing by allowing remote voting. Asked about it at his Sunday news conference, President Trump gave thumbs up: “I would be totally in favor of it on a temporary basis.”

I say, let’s take this a step further: do it permanently

Remote voting makes sense in an emergency. Sure. But it also makes sense all the time, because legislators voting from their home states and districts rather than within the Washington swamp would hear more from constituents than special interest lobbyists and, therefore, likely represent us better. 

Plus, not tethered to life in Washington, or the confines of the capitol, we might reduce the size of congressional districts from over 700,000 people to more like 70,000 and see real representation return to our land. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

telecommute, Rand Paul, Congress, Senate, Coronavirus, Corona Virus,

Original photo by Manuel Bahamondez H

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts