Category: media and media people

Categories
ballot access general freedom government transparency media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

A Brexit Effect?

gamble, betting, HIllary Clinton, Donald Trump, president, presidency, election, voting, illustration, creative commons

Before the Brexit vote, the likelihood of British secession from the European Union garnered a mere 25 percent chance. That was according to European betting markets, which are usually more accurate. In June, the Brits voted Brexit.

Donald Trump has made much hay of this, understandably.

On Tuesday, the odds of a Trump victory hit the same mark: 25 percent.

Gwynn Guilford’s report on this was drolly titled “Donald Trump has the same odds of winning as Jon Snow ruling Westeros, according to betting markets.”

On June 11, Business Insider had reported that Hillary was increasing her lead; on October 18, it exulted that the Irish betting markets had “already declared a winner” — not Trump. On November 1, the news aggregator merely noted that Moody’s is calling the election a landslide for Clinton.

But BI is also covering the scandal that has disturbed the Clinton camp. There’s no love lost between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, explains Natasha Bertrand in “‘The Antichrist personified’: ‘Open warfare’ and antipathy toward Clinton is reportedly fueling the FBI leaks.” The meat of her representation is that “much of the agents’ frustration . . . may boil down to partisanship”; the FBI is “Trumpland.”

Yet the article ends quoting another FBI official insisting that both Trump and Clinton are awful candidates.

A plausible judgment.

Whether late-in-the-game revelations of Clinton corruption and FBI probing can defy current odds and produce a Clinton defeat remains to be seen. As of Thursday evening, polls-only forecasts placed the odds of winning at 67/33 in favor of Mrs. Clinton, while electionbettingodds.com placed them at 70.2/29.2.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

N.B. Late-breaking Brexit news: The United Kingdom’s high court ruled yesterday that Parliament must vote to approve Brexit before the secession can proceed.

Printable PDF

gamble, betting, HIllary Clinton, Donald Trump, president, presidency, election, voting, illustration, creative commons

 

Categories
Accountability general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders media and media people nannyism national politics & policies

Are We Special?

Trojan Horse, Colorado, Amendment 71, initiative, referendum, Citizens in Charge, Paul Jacob,

“Cringe-worthy,” said Kyle Clark, co-anchor of 9NEWS in Denver. He was mocking the 10-foot tall, carved, wooden Trojan Horse replica that Amendment 71 opponents are wheeling around the Rocky Mountain State.

Clark admits that Amendment 71 “would make it harder to change Colorado’s constitution,” but doesn’t seem to have any clue just how much harder.*

“Those opponents with their Trojan Horse want to paint 71 as a sneaky power grab by big money interests from out of state,” Clark continued. “Funny, though, when you find out who paid for their horse.”

Wait . . . this is BIG: Who paid for the horse?

“It’s an in-kind contribution from Citizens in Charge Foundation. They’re a group that protects the initiative process around the country. . . . based out of Woodbridge, Virginia,” replied an Amendment 71 opponent.

Hey, that’s my group!

“Amendment 71 might be a Trojan Horse funded by outside interests,” Clark concluded, but it’s “illustrated by the Trojan Horse funded by outside interests.”

Cute . . . but . . . ?

Does Mr. Clark seriously think that (a) an organization dedicated to making the ballot initiative process accessible to all, with no other interest or business before state government, providing a vehicle and a trailer to carry a wooden horse across the state is equivalent to (b) a multi-million-dollar paid media barrage funded largely by oil and gas interests with lucrative interests before state government?

Citizens in Charge Foundation is honored to work with Coloradans to save their initiative rights by defeating 71.

Speaking of interests and who’s paying . . . 9NEWS has received the better part of a million dollars in ad revenue from the interests supporting Amendment 71.

Compared to a peek at a wooden horse from opponents.

Kyle Clark didn’t mention that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

P.S. Please help save Colorado by making a contribution right now.

 

*Coloradans who have actually qualified ballot initiatives say Amendment 71 would kill the process for all but the wealthiest special interests.

Trojan Horse Trails in Colorado

Printable PDF

Trojan Horse, Colorado, Amendment 71, initiative, referendum, Citizens in Charge, Paul Jacob,

 

Categories
Accountability insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

The Democracy Now

Donna Brazile, CNN, Hillary Clinton, question, illustration, Common Sense

Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was fondly referred to as “The Democracy.”

But that was a long time before the Clintons took control of the party’s heart and soul. It’s certainly been an insider’s game since.

Case in point? The deliberate scuttling of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz lost her chairperson-ship of the Democratic National Committee because of her (WikiLeaked email) collaboration with the Clintons over the dirty tricks that made sure Bernie got nowhere near the top levers of power.

And now we have Donna Brazile, covertly doing all she can to ensure the election to the Presidency of arguably the most corrupt politician of our time.

This political operative left CNN’s talking head ranks under a cloud — she had leaked to Clinton campaign communication director Jennifer Palmieri details about a question to be asked at a CNN-hosted presidential debate. Though CNN is not for nothing popularly known as the Clinton News Network, even CNN muckety-mucks felt betrayed.

But when interviewed by the indefatigable Megyn Kelly of Fox News, Brazile defended herself from the charges — “as a Christian woman” who understood “persecution”; she also compared her interviewer to a thief, and blamed Russian hackers.

Now, as a result of another WikiLeaks email exposure, Brazile has been caught again. The network has severed ties with her, and she’s defending herself with lines like “I try to learn as much as I can, share as much as I can.”

Unquestionably.

Having proven her loyalties, it looks like Ms. Brazile’s on track for a job in the new administration.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Donna Brazile, CNN, Hillary Clinton, question, illustration, Common Sense

 

Illustration based on original (cc) photo by Tim Pierce on Flickr

 

Categories
folly government transparency ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies

The Problem with Ruth Marcus

Bill Clinton, First Gentleman

Channeling The Sound of Music’s Mother Superior, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus asks, “How do you solve a problem like Bill Clinton?”

Marcus means Bill’s problematic possible return to the White House, the scene of his crimes, as First Dude in a new Clinton Administration — specifically his difficulties with “the twin minefields of sex and money.”

Starting with sex, Marcus argues that, “Trump’s misbehavior with women is a far more important topic than Clinton’s” because “Trump is on the ballot; Bill Clinton is not.”

True, except that Mrs. Clinton has promised to place Mr. Clinton “in charge of revitalizing the economy,” which Mrs. Marcus called “crazy.” Maybe, but it wasn’t Trump’s idea to ballyhoo the old two-for-one Clinton couple “advantage.”

“There is no condoning a record that reflects not just serial adultery, but abuse of power,” writes Marcus. Yet, she does precisely that by adding, “Clinton was a successful president who deserved the two terms for which he was elected, but his misbehavior would disqualify him from a third term even if the Constitution allowed it.”

What?! Quite a convenient drawing of the line, eh?

Of course, the problem isn’t merely Bill, as the columnist admits: “[I]t has become clear that they cannot be trusted to appropriately navigate ethical boundaries between their private interests and public responsibilities.”

Complaining about the “incessant schnorring for private jets, luxury vacation lodging, expensive trifles” by the Clintons, Marcus warns that, “It cannot happen in a new Clinton White House, especially with a Republican Party already drooling over the prospect of congressional investigations.”

But, Ruth, how will electing Hillary Clinton the next president cause Bill & Hill to change their ways?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Bill Clinton, First Gentleman

 

Categories
ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Pigs in Pokes

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, war, danger, president, illustration

On Tuesday, Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld exhorted Americans to stop Donald Trump at all cost.

The Donald, he asserted, is dangerous because too touchy, too childish in his egoism, to withstand the pressures of the presidency of these United States. “In the statement, Weld made no mention of Clinton,” writes the AP. He focused on Trump and the GOP, instead.

Both progressive and conservative outlets interpreted this as a de facto endorsement of voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton — an uncomfortable conclusion, considering that Weld is Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gov. Gary Johnson’s VP running mate.

Looking at the statement itself, it is apparent that Gov. Weld prefers The Devil We Know to The Devil He Fears.

Which is where he loses me.

One need not like Trump to understand his appeal. Trump is a smoking sack of Who Knows What placed upon the doorstep of the Establishment, the insider classes running the federal government and the Fourth Estate. By taking offense at Trump but not Clinton, Weld sides with the insiders. My longtime respect for Weld aside, how can one plausibly do that?

We know what the Establishment wants most: perpetual war, permanent debt, and secure power.

Meanwhile, the ostensible Republican has been awfully vague on policy. Voting for Trump is buying a pig in a poke.*

The Democratic poke is fairly well known. But Hillary, the war-monger who accuses Trump of being Putin’s “puppet” and repeatedly plays chicken with the world’s other great nuclear power, puts her own policies in a poke by proclaiming her personal prerogative of telling the voters one thing and her insider crowd another.

Neither sack of . . .  uh, please.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Old idiom: synonym for swine in a sack.

Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, war, danger, president, illustration

 

Questions Answered:
Who is Gov. William Weld most fearful of this election year?
How plausible is a preference of Hillary over The Donald?
What can we make of Hillary’s and Donald’s foreign policies?

Ask the next question. --Theodore SturgeonThe Next Question:
If pigs could fly, which one would you vote for?

Categories
Accountability media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility

A Leaner Bear

Hillary Clinton, Russia, Wikileaks

Russia is being painted as Enemy No. 1 by Hillary Clinton, despite her predecessor’s mocking of the same notion four years ago, when Republican Mitt Romney said it.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton is just using Russia as a distraction from her conspiracies and crimes and inadequacies as revealed by WikiLeaks.

What’s more worrying is Russia’s military adventuring, surely.

Before we wander into the morass that is foreign policy, maybe we should consider the Russian military itself . . . and its supporting economy.

Last year, TASS confidently informed us that the military budget was going up 0.8 percent in 2016, with $750 million slated for nuclear weaponry. I still hear talk of the latter fact; not much of the former factoid, that shockingly modest increase.

Even last year it was commonly noted that Russia’s military budget was getting “squeezed” . . . by hard times. Lack of revenue.

Now the hammer has fallen on the sickle: “Russian defence budget set to drop by 12%” in yesterday’s IHS Jane’s 360 article by Craig Caffrey.

First, don’t be alarmed: “defence” is how Brits misspell “defense.”

Second, take heart: Russia simply cannot do all it may want even in its darkest hearts.

Third, take caution: a weaker Russia is still dangerous, in some ways more so. We might see increased (and relatively cheap) cyber-warfare, of which Mrs. Clinton is so particularly mindful.

Finally, let’s acknowledge that American politicians have never focused rationally on the Russian threat, often hyping it gratuitously to enhance their own power, or, for that same reason, ignoring the threat entirely, as when smirking at Romney’s wise concerns.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, Russia, Wikileaks

 

Questions Answered:
Is Russia a threat?
Why are Democrats obsessed with Russia?
Why is Russia reducing its military budget?

Ask the next question. --Theodore Sturgeon

Ask The Next Question:
What kind of defense should a free people insist upon?

 

Categories
Accountability folly media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The Un-gaffe-able Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Mosul, Syria, Turkey, illustration

What a troublesome election season. My wife and I have argued for days . . . over which one of us first blurted out that Clinton’s statement about Mosul, Iraq, in the final presidential debate, was flat-out wrong.

Geographically. Map-wise.

Iraqi and Kurdish troops (with U.S. “advisors” and air cover) have set out to re-take Iraq’s second-largest city, under Islamic State control since June 2014. So both presidential candidates were questioned about it.

“What’s really important here is to understand all the interplay,” stated the former Secretary of State, authoritatively. “Mosul is a Sunni city. Mosul is on the border of Syria.”

The problem for Sec. Clinton?

Mosul is not on the Syrian border.

Syria is 100 miles to the west; Turkey, 75 miles north. Mosul is actually closer to the border of Turkey than Syria.

“It going to be tough fighting, but I think we can take back Mosul and then move on into Syria and take back Raqqa,” Mrs. Clinton asserted. “This is what we have to do.”

Really?

“Mrs. Clinton’s comments were uttered in the context of her strategic plan to take on ISIS,” explains Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com. “If she really thinks that taking Mosul will somehow provide a gateway to ‘press into Syria,’ then she is in for a big surprise.”

Over at Reason.org, Anthony Fisher found that “Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy gaffe at Wednesday’s debate was noticed by almost no one in the mainstream political commentariat.”

Libertarian Gary Johnson of “What is Aleppo?” fame sure noticed, dubbing the massive coverage of his gaffe and the complete non-coverage of hers “a very hypocritical double standard.”

(Psst — they want her to win.)

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Mosul, Syria, Turkey, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies responsibility

Hillary Futures

Hillary Clinton, lies, truth, untrustworthy, immigration, trade, drug war, war, Bosnia, Surveillance, Gay Rights, illustration

Trust must be earned; Hillary Rodham Clinton hasn’t earned it.

And yet, if the polls hold, Mrs. Clinton will be elected the next president of these United States — the first-ever female commander-in-chief, sure, but viewed by a clear majority of Americans as untrustworthy.

Part of the problem is her husband Bill. The former president has been accused of inappropriate sexual advances and liaisons . . . and even sex crimes. Hillary’s campaign rightly keeps reminding people that he is not on the ballot. But wasn’t Hillary going to have Bill “run the economy”?

Besides, what’s most relevant is how she defended her philandering husband against his women accusers, with threats, intimidation, and a decided lack of feminist solidarity.

Older folks remember “Travelgate” (a self-serving gaucherie); even Millennials should recall the Bosnian “sniper fire” (self-aggrandizing fib). Then there’s Benghazi. Documents obtained by Congress show Mrs. Clinton immediately telling her daughter that the attack was a planned terrorist attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate. Nonetheless, Hillary publicly blamed the attack on an Internet video.

It was “extremely careless” for Hillary to have set up a private email server, vulnerable to foreign hacking. But how sly to use BleachBit to destroy her hard drive, erasing any money trail. And then, she responded to reporters asking if she wiped her server: “Like with a cloth or something?” Chutzpah.

Ugliest, though, was one of the earliest: cattle futures.

Evidence convinces me that Hillary took a nearly $100,000 bribe disguised as profits from trading cattle futures that she did not actually trade. James Blair, “who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas’ largest employer,” helped Clinton supposedly “out of friendship, not to seek political gain for his state-regulated client.”

The windfall profit was more than lawyer Hillary and Attorney General (and then Governor) Bill earned together annually from their two fulltime jobs. Quite a risky “gamble.” Does Hillary seem like a reckless gambler?

So many scandals and lies. From the next president.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, lies, truth, untrustworthy, immigration, trade, drug war, war, Bosnia, Surveillance, Gay Rights, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability Common Sense general freedom ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

America After November

activism, politics, elections, initiatives, president, Trump, Clinton, meme, illustration

Yesterday, I bemoaned the disaster that is this year’s presidential race. But big whup. As the LifeLock commercial rightly asks, “Why monitor a problem if you don’t fix it?”

Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next president. That means we have our work cut out for us. And we can’t wait for the 2020 presidential race to fix the problem. We must immediately assert citizen power to create an effective check on government-gone-wild.

So, what to do?

First, let’s admit that fixing Washington isn’t easy. We must fight the Feds through national organizations, of course, but we actually gain greater leverage by working closer to home — at local and state levels.

We need to elect mayors, governors, legislators and councilmembers in 2017 and 2018, men and women who will fight for free markets and against cronyism. And stand up to the federal government.

And where we have the power of ballot initiatives and recall, let’s use it.

By Inauguration Day, we can be changing the conversation in most of the top 25 media markets. How? By petitioning the right issues onto the ballot. By April and May, voters in those cities and counties can directly enact those reforms. Next November, Ohio and Washington state voters can weigh in with ballot initiatives.

Sadly, tragically, it’s too late to stop campaign 2016’s tornado from doing damage. The next disaster of an administration is on its way. But we can create a competing agenda to the Hillary Clinton or the Donald Trump agenda.

A pro-liberty agenda. Starting now.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

activism, politics, elections, initiatives, president, Trump, Clinton, meme, illustration

 

Original (cc) photo by Niklas Hellerstedt on Flickr

Categories
general freedom insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government

We Take the Bullet

debate, Hillary, Donald Trump, the scream, bullet, illustration

“[I]f someone puts a gun to your head,” argues David Boaz of the Cato Institute, “and says you have to choose between Clinton and Trump, the correct answer is, take the bullet.”

Then, proving the axiom “it can always get worse,” came Friday’s twin revelations: the Washington Post broke the story of Donald Trump caught on a hot microphone bragging about groping women, and WikiLeaks released hacked emails with unflattering revelations about Hillary Clinton “principled” duplicity.

The Clinton camp huffs about the hack of campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, but denies nothing.

In those speeches for which Wall Street firms paid her millions, Clinton’s progressivism evaporates. She suggests Goldman Sachs and other large financial firms should regulate themselves, because they “know the industry better than anybody.”

While publicly bashing the rich, she privately complains before her wealthy audience about the “bias against people who have led successful . . . lives.” Moreover, Hillary explains that it’s bad “if everybody is watching” public policy being made, adding: “[Y]ou need both a public and a private position.”

And to think some folks don’t trust her.

Mr. Trump likewise confirmed our worst fears. During a 2005 taping of a television soap, he boasted that “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

And then gave a “rapey” example of what “anything” means.

This man deserves political power?

Forget which is worse. Note how much alike they are. Both seem to think they can say — even do — anything. Without consequences.

Without caring one whit about the rest of us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

debate, Hillary, Donald Trump, the scream, bullet, illustration