Category: national politics & policies

Categories
crime and punishment national politics & policies

Even Libertarians

John Brennan

Former CIA Director John Brennan raised eyebrows, last week, when he said on MSNBC that officials in the new administration “are now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, Nativists, even libertarians.”

Tellingly, he doesn’t mention any specific groups by name. Like antifa (cough). But in America there have been a few violent groups engaged in what might be called “insurgencies.”

It is almost as if Brennan has forgotten the groups that this past year have gone so far as to set up political territory within major American cities, proclaiming independence from these United States. Such “autonomous zones” (hastily and violently constructed in Seattle and elsewhere) existed for days and weeks on end but failed to spark the Democrats’ “laser-like” attention as did the capitol break-in, which just so happened to be an assault upon them. 

Why ignore antifa but focus on . . . “even libertarians”? 

While libertarians defend freedom and peaceful change, the Democratic Party and the Deep State seem to find mass protest combined with violence in causes they like helpful (“Black Lives Matter,” etc.). For increasing their insider power, no doubt, and ramping it up to new, oppressive levels. But mass protest (say, against the lockdowns) they regard as dangerous — because corrosive to their power. 

Meanwhile, antifa in Portland have taken to the streets and attacked Democratic Party offices. 

Violence is not something we should be cavalier about. Or partisan about. Oppose it all. Period.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
national politics & policies

Unity Means Not Dividing

Joe Biden, unity, division

Today, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., the former Vice-President and longtime U.S. Senator from Delaware will become the 46th president of these United States. Speaking of being united, or getting united, that’s something the 78-year-old Biden, with 43-years of Washington experience, wants to work on.

Good luck. Let me offer some advice: Recognize when the country is already united, then play into it by advancing policies supported by overwhelming majorities.

Term limits come to my mind, as does another issue, popular left to right: criminal justice reform. Americans are solidly for that . . . but instead of political action, we got a lousy summer of double-digit deaths by riot. And, as civil disorders go, last summer’s unrest was the most expensive destruction ever — over $1 billion in senseless damage.  

Unity also suggests not needlessly dividing folks. 

Which makes me wonder why, the day after the capitol riot, Biden characterized the police response as “a clear failure to carry out equal justice.” 

A woman was shot dead within the capitol building; I’m only glad more people weren’t killed. 

Aren’t you, Joe? 

“No one can tell me,” Biden argued, “that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn’t have been treated very, very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the capitol. We all know that’s true, and it is unacceptable.”

Well, at Reason/The Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein calls that gaslighting, rattling off the reality of stand-down orders for police in Minneapolis, Chicago, Indianapolis, Columbus, Louisville, Portland, Denver and elsewhere — not to mention demonstrators setting up a Seattle “autonomous zone” treated to weeks of hands-off non-policing. 

Americans, black and white, liberal and conservative, are united against violence, at the U.S. Capitol or anywhere else. 

Don’t divide us, Joe. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies term limits

Why Congress Can’t Read

Blind Leading the Blind, US Congress, politicians

They don’t read.

No one reads the legislation Congress passes, not the staffers and lobbyists who write “the packages” and congresspeople least of all, as again illustrated by the recent 5,593-page, $2.3 trillion pandemic-relief-plus-kitchen-sink bill just passed by Congress. 

They haven’t for decades. 

Nor do they care to.

James Bovard, expert reporter on the excesses of the modern individual-stomping state, says the new monster-bill “is another warning that know-nothing, no-fault legislating will be the death of our republic unless Americans can severely reduce Congress’s prerogative to meddle in their lives.”

Correct. Problem is, it’s Congress that must enact reform — on itself. Talk about a conflict of interest! That’s why the citizen initiative process has been so important at the state level. Without democratic checks — initiative, referendum, recall — at the federal level, what major reform is even possible? 

All big, necessary reforms hit a roadblock on that issue alone.

That goes for limiting the page-length of bills or requiring legislation be posted online for days if not weeks before a vote. 

Same for congressional term limits, which would de-insulate Congress from us. 

And, just so, with the late columnist Bob Novak’s proposal of smaller districts, maybe increasing the number of U.S. representative to 2,000. (It wouldn’t cost taxpayers anything more if we cut their pay.) More politicians might be better than fewer by decreasing the power of individual politicians — diminishing marginal power, you might say.

We find ourselves in a trap. These ideas amount to ways to avoid the trap once we are out of it.

But it is getting out of the trap that’s the hard part.

Any ideas? Please advise. You can be sure your good ideas will be read — not by Congress, of course, but by those of us who want a way out.  

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
international affairs national politics & policies

The Return of the Imperialists

Joe Biden, war, foreign policy

We don’t live in a Star Wars universe. Not yet. But certain themes crop up: republic gives way to empire, and elite corps of . . . magic fighters? . . . seek to run a technocratic state. 

Donald Trump was cast by Democrats as an evil emperor sort of figure, but he didn’t quite fit that script — being the only president in two decades not to engage in a regime-change war.

So, with President-not-quite-Elect Joe Biden publicly announcing his new cabinet heads, we can see the old script followed closely, with the imperial guard piling up outside the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania, panting for power.

Though there are reams of news stories about this to pore over — the picks are big news — I’ll focus on Reason’s round-up. Of course, Biden is offering up Big Spenders (for whom deficits and debts just don’t matter*) as well as gung-ho interventionists. Take the Secretary of State candidate, Antony Blinken, profiled by Bonnie Kristian. While the proposed Secretary pro forma admitted that America cannot “solve all the world’s problems alone,” he then suggested that “our government can solve all the world’s problems if only it partners with other governments,” Ms. Kristian relates. She notes that Blinken has supported “U.S. military action in Libya, Yemen, and Syria. 

“And though he has since regretted the Yemen call, he believes the mistake in Syria was a failure to escalate.”

President Donald John Trump has followed the bomber love of his advisors, but has never quite bought into the need to escalate every conflict. And for that audacity, the foreign policy establishment has loathed him.

When Biden does hobble into the White House, we can unfortunately expect fewer ‘failures to escalate.’

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* While Republicans do almost nothing to hold back deficit spending, and consequent debt accumulation, Democrats increasingly demonstrate a special zealotry in confessing their lack of concern.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies

Lockdown Mania, Winter Phase

lockdown, America, USA, Master locks

New Mexico, along with many other states, is going into lockdown. 

“The rate of spread and the emergency within our state hospitals are clear indicators that we cannot sustain the current situation without significant interventions to modify individual behavior,” Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is quoted in her office’s press release. 

“The public health data make clear,” the governor asserts, that “more aggressive restrictions are not only warranted but essential if we are to prevent mass casualties. Without the compliance and cooperation of New Mexicans statewide, we do not need to imagine the bleak public health calamity we will face — the images from El Paso the last few weeks, from New York City earlier this year, and from Europe at the outset of the pandemic will be our fate in New Mexico.”

The report from The Hill did not interrogate the claims, just repeated the planned massive intervention and accepted the statements as fact.

Contrary to all this assertion, the evidence that lockdowns help remains worse than murky. European states that locked down tightly early in the year are experiencing this second or third “wave” worse than those that did not go full-on “mitigation.” The classic case is Sweden, which infamously resisted lockdown mania. Using the best test of success, “excess mortality,” Sweden is doing remarkably well. 

Sweden’s a problem for lockdowners, who avoid fair comparisons and . . . are devoted to spin. On the same day, Business Insider and Reuters covered the same story, with these headlines:

Sweden has admitted its coronavirus immunity predictions were wrong as cases soar across the country.

Second wave, same strategy: Swedish COVID-19 czar defiant despite surge.

Meanwhile, a controlled study of lockdown mitigations using obedient Marines found: quarantines don’t control the spread of the disease.

Nevertheless, politicians seem hellbent on lockdowns, something they know how to do . . . whether it helps or not.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
national politics & policies paternalism

Georgia on My Mind

one party state, Republicans, Democrats, Georgia, Senate, House of Representatives

Georgia, oh Georgia
No, no, no, no, no peace I find . . .

So opens James Brown’s famous song — also an iconic hit for Ray Charles.*

As the rest of the country quiets down, post-election, that crooned-about lack of peace continues to echo in the Peach State as if in a deep, vast cavern. Two U.S. Senate seats now go to a January 5th runoff election, which will decide partisan control of Congress’s upper chamber.

Democrats control the House and — barring some Hail Mary effort likely to require Mary’s own participation — they will take the White House as well. In the Senate, Republicans currently hold a 50-48 lead, but if Democrats win both of these razor-close races in a state won narrowly by Democrat Biden, the Senate majority, too, will be theirs . . . by virtue of Vice-President Kamala Harris’s tie-breaking vote.

Whether held by Republicans or Democrats, unitary one-party control of the federal leviathan could prove extraordinarily consequential . . . in a frightening sort of way.

“[T]he federal government works better when divided, not unified,” argues the Cato Institute’s Steve H. Hanke, citing divided government as less likely to go to war, more likely to pass sustainable reforms and noting that “federal spending tends to be lower with divided governments.”**

Other reasons include existential threats to our little experiment with citizen-controlled government. 

Having threatened to completely abolish the Senate filibuster rule, Democrats with a slim majority could then pack the Supreme Court — adding new justices to gain a majority, using one election to nullify elections going back decades. And forever partisanizing and politicizing our independent judiciary. 

Just an old sweet song — and the future of America — Keeps Georgia on my mind.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

*  We made a terrible mistake. Hoagy Carmichael is the author of “Georgia on My Mind,” not James Brown. Here is a version of the song performed by Carmichael. PJ

** For these reasons, to keep divided government, third-place finishing Libertarian candidate Shane Hazel should endorse Republican David Perdue against Democrat Jon Osskoff. Hazel garnered 2.3 percent of the vote, while Perdue fell only 0.3% short of winning a majority and precluding the runoff.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies term limits

The Next Election

American Flag, Election 2020

“If Tuesday’s vote sparks unrest,” a weekend Washington Post feature informed, “customers at Fortitude Ranch will be secure behind walls patrolled by armed guards.”

The Post highlighted a pricey survivalist “get away” in West Virginia and hyped for the rest of us “that violence could erupt, especially if the vote count drags on for days without a clear winner.”

Just as an aside, doesn’t it seem like we are getting less information about what happened yesterday and a lot more “news” about what is going to happen tomorrow? 

Anyway, I think we can trust each other. We’ve got to. Not on TV, but in real life. 

Part of that trust is believing that one election loss won’t alter all previous societal norms [cough: court-packing]. Yes, elections have consequences, but in a free country, losing an election should not be a scary event. Look at me, I have only voted for one winning candidate in my entire life!!!*

Whatever happens tomorrow . . . or days or weeks later . . . don’t worry. You have rights and there shall be another election before too long. Right? 

Rights?

“Eternal vigilance” being the rule about defending basic things like rights, the next election will always be the most important.

Ballot measures in Arkansas, Florida and North Dakota are about the next election. 

Sadly, dangerously, they seek to make it much harder and more expensive for citizens to petition issues onto the state ballot and gain an up or down decision from the voters. That’s why Citizens in Charge is fighting to defeat all three.

Proponents shriek that wealthy out-of-state interests must be stopped from changing the state constitution, but not a single word in any of the three amendments even touches on out-of-state funding. Instead, each makes the process more cumbersome and expensive, undercutting grassroots groups while having little effect on moneyed interests.

In North Dakota, voters passed a reform measure in 2018 creating a state ethics commission. The ballot issue was funded by an out-of-state group, and thoroughly despised by state legislators . . . who referred Measure 2 to the ballot.

Measure 2 allows the legislature to veto a vote of the people for a constitutional amendment and require the vote to be held a second time. Beyond the ugly optics of politicians vetoing the people, it will make passing an initiative amendment much more costly — again empowering wealthier interests at the expense of the less well-heeled.

In Florida, a constitutional amendment already requires a 60-percent supermajority vote. Amendment 4 would require the measure win a second time by that supermajority. In the nation’s third largest state, the expense of a second campaign weighs in favor of long-term established political interests and against grassroots reform.

In Arkansas, Issue 2 seeks to further weaken the already weakened term limits and Issue 3 endeavors to wreck the petition process to block a future term limits initiative. Previously, I’ve explained the duo of amendments as the “Lifetime Politicians Ruin Christmas Amendments.” Today, a “Trojan” Horse travels Arkansas telling the tale. 

Which is critical because Arkansas legislators refused to clue-in voters. The ballot titles that legislators placed on both measures tell voters precisely zero about the actual constitutional changes being voted upon. 

That our own representatives are attempting to knock out an important democratic check on themselves is not “the small stuff.”

We had better sweat it. 

And you can help Citizens in Charge fight back. It’s too late to do more toward tomorrow’s votes in Arkansas, Florida and North Dakota. With earned (free) media work and a shoestring budget of Facebook ads, we got our message out in all three states and have a shot to defeat each one.

Help us fight the new bills we know are coming as legislative sessions begin in January. Support our work with activists in Arkansas and North Dakota fighting Issue 3 and Measure 2, respectively, as they go on offense to demand change — perhaps by initiative.

Good luck to America tomorrow, but the campaign to prevent critical grassroots democratic checks from being hobbled and chopped and blocked continues. Because there is another election in 2022.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* And I still regret it. Who was it? Well, ours are secret ballots, but I will fully disclose the sordid details in the first three minutes of my podcast this weekend.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
international affairs national politics & policies

In Deep with Biden

Joe Biden, war, deep state

On Election Day, “the Empire hopes to strike back,” writes Daniel McCarthy for The Spectator. “Joe Biden personifies the foreign policy of endless war that Democrats and neoconservatives pursued for 25 years, from the end of the Cold War until the election of Donald Trump in 2016.”

McCarthy argues that “Biden’s overall record is one of foreign policy interventionism,” but Biden’s Senate voting record is iffy-fifty: Biden “voted for the Iraq War, but he also voted against the 2007 surge.” He voted for the 1999 Serbian war, which destabilized relations with Russia, allowing the rise of Putin. But Biden voted against 1991’s Persian Gulf adventure which set the stage for post-Cold War American megalomania.

Nevertheless, McCarthy argues that “Joe Biden is an archetypal liberal interventionist of the post-Cold War variety. He understands war in the same terms as domestic policy: as an occasion to expand the power wielded by experts in Washington, whose moral and rational qualifications are beyond question — no matter how disastrous the consequences of their policies.”

Such a plausible case. War is certainly government “activism.”

McCarthy has spotted a real problem in “progressive liberalism,” and understands the “peer pressure” that so oppressively rules in the corridors of power. But he misses — perhaps merely for reasons of space — the sheer institutional power of the Deep State. It holds the secrets, it controls vast amounts of money, its immensity overpowers rational thought.

It is the government we cannot get to; it is the government that tried to “get” Trump.

Perhaps our “right to petition the government” can skip Congress and go right to the source, the Deep State.

Which really wants Biden to win.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Ghost of an Argument

Amy Coney Barrett, ACB, ,Supreme Court

On the 73rd anniversary of the birth of Hillary Clinton, the United States Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Mrs. Clinton, the former Democratic presidential candidate, looms in the background of the issue as a sort of éminence grise, a specter of the politics of the left. Had she won in 2016, late luminary RBG would have been replaced by a progressive woman. Not ACB.

For what would have been Hillary’s, count ’em, third nomination.

Not a specter, or grisey eminence, is Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Joe Biden’s partner in procuring 2020’s big prize. 

“I’m on my way to the Senate floor to vote no on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” Harris tweeted, yesterday. “Health coverage for millions of people hinges on who fills this seat. It’s clear that this nominee has the potential to do great harm to the American people.”

Note that this complaint has nothing to do with actual judicial qualifications. It has to do with a policy that Democrats insist upon: socialized medical billing. But as ACB made clear in the hearings, her judicial mindset is about legal process, as it should be, not government policy.

An hour later, candidate Harris asserted that Senate Republicans had “denied the will of the American people by confirming a Supreme Court justice through an illegitimate process.”

Illegitimate?

Well, you see, “more than 62 million people have already voted.” That is it. Harris pretends that since there is an election next week, and some people have already voted, the normal, constitutional business of Congress should not go on.

Anything to rescue their broken policy, Obamacare. 

Next week’s election sure will have consequences, but ACB’s stint on the Court resulted from Hillary’s quite legitimate loss.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

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

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

Right at the Top of the Stairs

Orange Man

“I’m appalled by the choice that we have been delivered,” political humorist P.J. O’Rourke told Reason TV last week, referring to the two major-party presidential nominees.

“Biden’s campaign platform is 564 pages long. It promises everything to everybody,” bemoans the 72-year-old author of a new book of essays, A Cry from the Far Middle: Dispatches from a Divided Land. “It’s full of unicorns and flying ponies and candy-flavored rainbows and pixie dust.”

As for President Trump, “I think we’re done with this experiment of having the inmates run the asylum,” O’Rourke jabs, calling Trump a “dangerous and unpredictable man” and “rude.” 

“It isn’t so much exactly what Trump has done,” admits the comedic writer, who while panning Trump’s immigration policies, lauded his lowering of corporate tax rates and his raising of “awareness that China is not our friend.”

Instead, O’Rourke argues “it’s a matter of what [Trump] can do” in a second term, calling him “a toddler at the top of the stairs.”

Speaking of . . . P.J. turned back to the Democratic ticket: “They seem to be wrong, all wrong, quite wrong, about everything.” 

He’s not wrong.

“But” of Biden and Harris, O’Rourke contends they are “wrong between normal parameters of wrong.” Adding that, “There’s wrong and there’s damn wrong.” Meaning Trump is “damn wrong.” 

But not wrong on taxes, right P.J.? Or China. Or picking Supreme Court justices — Trump has the best batting average for nominating to the High Court of any president in the last five decades. 

And Mr. Trump is the first president in two decades not to drag the U.S. into a regime change war.

“Wrong on everything” or “a toddler at the top of the stairs”?

This P.J. thinks the better choice is Common Sense. 

PDF for printing

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