Category: national politics & policies

Categories
national politics & policies partisanship political challengers

No Protection, No Duh

Joe Biden

Major candidates for the presidency are usually granted security details. The Biden Administration has so far balked at providing anything like that for Democrat-turned-independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 

Why?

In an October 16th letter, Senator Ted Cruz (R.-Tex.) challenged Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for 88 days of “failing to respond” to the candidate’s formal request, as well as for ignoring “follow-ups by his campaign.” 

The senator writes that this “represents a stark departure from the standard fourteen-day turnaround for this type of request.”

Cruz also cites an apparent attempt on Kennedy’s life, a man dressed up as a U.S. Marshal caught at one of his Los Angeles campaign events. 

“On Sept. 29, two weeks after the Los Angeles incident,” explains The Epoch Times, “government accountability organization Judicial Watch received 11 pages of Secret Service records that detailed its denial of Mr. Kennedy’s protection request.” The Secret Service acknowledges “that Mr. Kennedy received several threats from ‘known subjects’ and that he is at a higher ‘risk for adverse attention.’”

The report was no doubt placed in the “No Duh” file.

The history of the Kennedys being what it is, one is almost tempted to hazard a guess as to why The Biden has so little interest in protecting the political competition. 

Hasn’t it crossed every American’s mind that this son and nephew of two assassinated political figures might be targeted . . . maybe by the same group of assassins? Which many have wondered might have hailed from within the government.

Wait — is The Biden trying to say . . . no protection necessary . . . don’t worry . . . they have no such plans?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder

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

Categories
national politics & policies

Leverage & Resistance

Speaker of the House, Congress, spending, compromise

“Let’s be clear,” said Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) yesterday, speaking of the difficulty Republicans in the House of Representatives have in finding a new Speaker, “January was a coronation, and it was difficult; this is a competition, and it’s going to be even more difficult.”

Asked about the Steve Scalise (R-La.) candidacy, Rep. Massie replied that at least 20 Republicans would never vote for Scalise as Speaker.

Wednesday, Scalise expressed his honor to have been nominated for the position. Thursday he withdrew his nomination. “There are still some people that have their own agendas. And I was very clear we have to have everybody put their agendas on the side and focus on what this country needs.”

This begs the question. What does the country need? Bad-mouthing the dozen or so who would not support his compromising techniques as pushing “their own agenda” is a rhetorical move, but it is by no means demonstrated. 

Massie made the point that the recently ousted Speaker (whose ouster he did not support) had negotiated a significant concession from the Biden Administration — a one percent reduction in spending for a debt limit increase — and that no candidate for Speaker who would not press this advantage further could be accepted.

The collapse of the Scalise campaign leaves only Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Oh.) in the offing. A far better option. As of this writing, on Thursday night, no one else has thrown a hat into the ring.

It’s a pretty contentious ring, with elbows getting thrown by the Republican Freedom Caucus types leveraging the power they have. The establishment GOP is reeling.

Which is not always a good thing.

And Democrats? Appalled.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. With a $33 trillion debt and growing fast, should everyone blithely march towards oblivion, meekly following the leader in Washington’s favorite version of Kick the Can?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder

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

Categories
crime and punishment folly national politics & policies

Don’t Fence Me In?

Joe Biden, border wall, immigration, NIMBY

“The Biden administration on Thursday said it would expand former President Donald Trump’s wall,” informs The Gray Lady, with a stiff upper lip. 

And do it lickety-split: “Biden criticized for waiving 26 laws in Texas to allow border wall construction,” the UK Guardian headlines its report. 

In fiscal 2023, government data shows 245,000 people entered the United States from this Rio Grande Valley sector.

“There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project areas,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas stated in the federal registry.

“Well, Mexico didn’t pay for the wall,” quipped the American Economic Liberties Project’s Matt Stoller, “Biden did.”

“There will not be another foot of wall constructed in my administration,” the president had promised to the contrary during the 2020 campaign. Now Sleepy Joe’s administration has so awakened to the need for action on immigration that it argues for fencing off the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Endangered Species Act from getting in the way . . . 

. . . of building that wall. 

Fast!

The New York Times notes “intensifying” complaints coming from “Democratic leaders in New York, Chicago and elsewhere who say the influx is overwhelming their ability to house and feed the migrants.” 

Want a nimble response to the border crisis? 

Instead, we see a NIMBY response — from big-city politicians, as the buses arrive from down south.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

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

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies tax policy

Kick the Can

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R.-Fla.) , Congress, spending

At first blush, it seems like the most pointless political move ever.

When Rep. Matt Gaetz (R.-Fla.) moved to oust Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R.-Cal.) from his role as Speaker of the House, lots of eyebrows were raised, and at least one pair of lips was licked. But did it make any sense?

This has never happened before, a House Speaker ousted by his own party mid-session.

That’s not an argument against the move, though. It was Gaetz who had blocked McCarthy back in January, through more than a dozen votes, allowing the moderate Republican to serve only with explicit conditions. Gaetz now says that McCarthy has failed to meet those conditions. Arguably, that’s accountability in action. Good?

Or mere revenge? After all, McCarthy had just made a deal with a sizable number of minority Democrats to fund the government and prevent a federal shutdown — thus kicking the overspending/insolvency can down the road again. Gaetz and his closest colleagues in the House made the same deal with the opposition party, ousting McCarthy. 

It’s a game of kick the can, however you look at it.

Gaetz argues that McCarthy did not do what was required to bring fiscal responsibility, such as un-package spending bills. “We told you how to use the power of the purse: individual, single-subject spending bills that would allow us to have specific review, programmatic analysis and,” explained Gaetz, “that would allow us to zero out the salaries of the bureaucrats who have broken bad, targeted President Trump or cut sweetheart deals for Hunter Biden.”

But the deed is done. McCarthy’s out. Now, who to replace him?

Funny that no one mentions the wild plan to put Trump into the job — you know, the plan first floated after Election 2020?

It was such a snickered-at notion, just a goofy way of taking 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from Joe Biden.

Still, it was a plan. Only in the next few days and weeks will we learn if Gaetz really has one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

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

Categories
incumbents media and media people national politics & policies

Conservatorships Now!

Joe Biden, senile, old

“Libertarians Want Control Over Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell,” the headline read.

That’s odd. Libertarians don’t usually want control over anyone.

But at issue is whether Sleepy Joe and Motionless Mitch have control over themselves.

“The U.S. Libertarian Party has filed for conservatorships for President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, referring to them as ‘geriatric elites’ mentally unfit to properly serve the American populace,” Newsweek reported on Tuesday.

“Both subjects’ ability to receive and evaluate information effectively, make decisions, and to communicate are impaired to such an extent that they lack the capacity to represent themselves or the interests of Americans,” explained a party news release.

“These men, and others like them (like Diane Feinstein and John Fetterman) are not well enough to be left alone in the house all day,” Libertarian National Committee Chair Angela McArdle argued. “How are they well enough to govern our lives and spend our tax dollars?”

She added: “so we’ve compassionately decided to step in and make those important decisions for them.”

At 80 years of age, Mr. Biden is the oldest president ever. If re-elected in 2024, he would be 86 at the conclusion of his term. Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, 81 years of age, has been in public office in Washington for the last 38 years. 

The problem, of course, is not age as a number, but that both men have exhibited behavior that concerns us for their health and well-being. Mitch has repeatedly frozen in public, to be led away like a zoned-out sleepwalker, while the president, on his recent Vietnam trip, closed a press conference with “I don’t know about you, but I’m going to go to bed.”

Still, their string-pullers persist in milking each to the last drool-drip of inertial power. Their families should step in. 

Until then, the Libertarian Party will have to do.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai

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

Categories
general freedom individual achievement national politics & policies

Swim Against the Swamp

Senator Tommy Tuberville

Mark Tapscott says Republicans should be made of sterner stuff.

He points to Senator Tommy Tuberville (R.-Ala.) as one who is showing Republicans “How to Win the Budget Battle Against the Swamp.”

Senate rules are such that a single U.S. Senator can prevent military promotions and appointments from being approved by unanimous consent (without a recorded vote). Tuberville has blocked hundreds, saying he’ll retreat only when the Biden administration drops its policy of paying for abortion-related expenses of military personnel. The policy violates the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits using tax dollars to pay for abortions.

Tuberville has stuck to his guns despite abuse. Emulate him, Tapscott enjoins.

Don’t mistake Tapscott to imply that negotiating a compromise is always legitimate, while he acknowledges: “nobody gets everything they demand, but everybody must get some of what they demand. [But only] when both sides realize that’s the only way out of an impasse.”

Demand what, though?

The principles, if any, that bring you to Congress should not be compromised. Whether forsaking them entails making any given unpalatable agreement isn’t always obvious. But often, it is. And you betray yourself by pretending otherwise.

What if, over the last 90 years, relatively decent lawmakers had never accepted deals — about spending, taxes, regulations, foreign policy, and other questions — that entailed violating the proper function of government as they understood it?

The battles, the outcomes, the procedures, and the precedents would have been much different. And I think we’d be far better off.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai

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

Categories
Accountability folly national politics & policies

Will We Comply?

Donald Trump, Anthony Fauci, covid, masks

“To every COVID tyrant who wants to take away our freedom, hear these words,” intoned Donald J. Trump, eleven days ago, “we will not comply.”

The former president did not stop there: “So don’t even think about it. We will not shut down our schools. We will not accept your lockdowns. We will not abide by your mask mandates. And we will not tolerate your vaccine mandates.”

While Trump still boasts about his vaccine heroism, his supporters range from iffy to hostile on the subject. So Trump positions himself against mandates and for “freedom,” while in the past he was for masks and for lockdowns, as well as pushing the novel vaccines that cleverly (and perhaps dangerously) leveraged the spiked protein protuberances on SARS-CoV-2.

Meanwhile, Dr. Anthony Fauci, whom Trump brought into the world conversation about the pandemic in 2020, is similarly trying to position himself with some trickiness and . . . care. 

Fauci foresees mask recommendations, but no mandates — but note that he focuses on what federal bureaucrats say and do, not on what governors in the states do under federal bureaucrats’ advisement. 

CNN’s Michael Smerconish interrogated Fauci about the many studies showing that masks are ineffective against respiratory diseases like COVID. 

Fauci’s reply? Against the big study cited here in February, Fauci mentioned “other studies,” lamely and unconvincingly. He admitted that, overall — as affecting the course of the pandemic — “the data” about mask efficacy have been “less strong.” But “on an individual basis of someone protecting themselves, or protecting themselves from spreading to others,” Fauci still insists “there’s no doubt that there are many studies” showing “an advantage.”

If you buy that, you’ll wear masks forever — or comply with anything.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai

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

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

Bashing Climate Change

Vivek, climate change, global warming, debate

“[T]he climate change agenda and the policies are killing more people than climate change,” Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy informed CNN’s Dana Bash yesterday. “That’s the reality.”

He explained: “The climate-related death rate — tornadoes, hurricanes, heat waves — it is down by 98 percent over the last century. For every 100 people who died of a climate-related disaster in 1920, two die today. And the reason why is more abundant and plentiful access and use of fossil fuels.”

Attacking the “anti-fossil fuel agenda,” Ramaswamy added, “Eight times as many people today are dying of cold temperatures, rather than warm ones. And the right answer to all temperature-related deaths is more plentiful access to fossil fuels.”

Her head having exploded, Bash responded by actually telling Vivek: “As you know, it’s not about people dying today. It’s about what is going to happen in the short term and long term.”

“Oh,” replied Mr. Ramaswamy, “I think it’s all about people dying today.”

Today does certainly come before both short term and long term.

“If you don’t want to cut fossil fuels,” Bash inquired, “what would your policies be to slow things like droughts, like flooding and other damage to our planet?”

“I think we should focus on adaptation and mastery of any change in the climate,” offered the candidate, “through technological advances powered by fossil fuels and other forms of energy.”

Celebrities, politicians and diplomats jetting off to international junkets where they jawbone over unenforceable agreements to cut carbon emissions may impress CNN talking heads. But will Vivek Ramaswamy’s more practical alternative convince voters?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

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

Categories
insider corruption national politics & policies

Un-Masking the Maskers

covid, masks, hysteria

While we turned to face masks as easy-to-practice tools early in the fight against the novel coronavirus, folks at the Centers for Disease Control were . . . lying about said technology.

“In a recently obtained letter (pdf) sent in November 2021 to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),” writes Megan Redshaw in The Epoch Times, “top epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, and seven colleagues informed the agency it was promoting flawed data and excluding data that did not reinforce their narrative.”

By over-stating the effectiveness of masks, the CDC “would ‘damage the credibility of science,’ endanger public trust by ‘misrepresenting the evidence,’ and give the public ‘false expectations’ masking would protect them from the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.”

While Osterholm and others expressed alarm that the CDC’s selection of study citations was more conclusion-oriented than process- (science-) oriented — “focus[ing] on the strengths of studies that support its conclusions while ignoring their shortcomings of study design” — we the patients (and doctors) were continually distracted from best practices during a pandemic.

Meanwhile, millions died.

The scientists’ letter was uncovered via aFreedom of Information Act (FOIA) process initiated by The Functional Government Initiative, which in making it public stated, “The story of official masking guidance should trouble the American public. Recall that Dr. Fauci at first said there was no need for masks. Then cloth masks were all that stood between you and COVID. But as evidence against cloth masks appeared. . . .”

Well, the rest is history: Big Government Science masking the truth.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai and DALL-E2

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

Categories
insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies

In Evidence

Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Ukraine, corruption

In yesterday’s Washington Post, fact-checker Glenn Kessler explained, per the headline: “How Republicans overhype the findings of their Hunter Biden probe.”

He has a point. For example, the official House committee staff carefully stated that they had “identified over $20 million in payments from foreign sources to the Biden family and their business associates.” But Committee Chairman Comer turned that into: “The Biden family received over $20 million from our enemies around the world.”

The whole $20M+ didn’t go to the Biden Crime Family. Kessler’s analysis puts that number at merely $7.5 million. 

I guess this is why gang members sometimes turn on each other.

But Kessler — like so many other mainstream media mouthpieces — gets something very, very wrong.

“No evidence has emerged that any of these funds can be traced to Joe Biden himself,” the fact-checker asserts before delving into the specifics of his checked facts. Near the close, Kessler reiterates: “No money has been traced to Joe Biden.”

That’s just not true.

In a text that was discovered on the infamous Hunter laptop (now verified even by big media behemoths), Hunter Biden tells his daughter that his father (now President Biden for those following closely at home) makes Hunter kick back roughly 50 percent of his income.

A statement made in confidence to a loved one is commonly referred to as evidence. Strong evidence.

There are additional communications and invoices showing Hunter paid bills for “the Big Guy,” including home repairs and improvements costing thousands of dollars.

No matter how hard “fact checkers” ignore the evidence, it is still there.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai and DALL-E2

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