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

The Democracy Now

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
Common Sense free trade & free markets general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders nannyism national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest too much government U.S. Constitution

Don’t Kill Colorado!

America has lots of problems. Colorado isn’t one of them.

Search the Internet and confirm that the Rocky Mountain State is the fourth best state “to make a living”; sixth best for homeowners; third on CNBC’s “Top States for Business”; and even holds a coveted first place in “arts engagement.”

What’s not to like?

I know Colorado, fondly, as the only state with a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), a constitutional amendment requiring state legislators who want to hike spending or taxes to first ask citizens for approval. It was passed by voters in 1992, by citizens’ initiative.

Imagine that! Citizens in charge. In real life.

In Colorado.

Unsurprisingly, TABOR has long been No. 1 on Big Government’s hit list; for politicians, lobbyists, university presidents and political insiders, it’s the bane of their existence.

Along with the citizen initiative process, from which it came.

That’s why Colorado’s political establishment spent a million dollars to put Amendment 71 on next Tuesday’s ballot. They aim to kill both TABOR and the citizen initiative.

The amendment allows any partial or total repeal of TABOR — or other current parts of the state constitution — with a simple majority vote of 50-percent-plus-one. But it demands that any new enactment of taxpayer protection (or other reform) leap over a 55 percent supermajority hurdle.

Fair?

It means that a court decision, which “reinterprets” any provision of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, could only be corrected by citizens with a supermajority vote. And citizens would face an avalanche of big spending from big labor and big business. That’s not a bug, but a feature for the powerful forces behind 71.

Still, Amendment 71’s murderous intent goes deeper. The measure also destroys the ability of regular people and grassroots groups to petition constitutional amendments onto the ballot. Instead of one statewide petition drive, Amendment 71 adds 35 additional onerous petition requirements — in every single senate district in the state.

The next question is obvious: Did the political big-shots behind Amendment 71, who blew a cool million dollars to gather their signatures, manage to meet their own mandate for future initiatives by qualifying in all 35 senate districts? Not even close.

While the lobbyists and politicians behind 71 have spent many additional millions claiming Colorado is the easiest state to amend the constitution, a real expert — Dane Waters, chairman of the Initiative & Referendum Institute — concludes just the opposite. His analysis indicates that Colorado’s process is actually “one of the most difficult in the country.” And should 71 pass, Colorado would have “the most strict distribution requirement anywhere in the world,” he said.

Waters fears that by blocking initiative constitutional amendments “on top of the fact that the legislature [in Colorado] has the authority to overturn any statutory initiative, [Amendment 71] will basically shut down the initiative process in Colorado.”

And that is how voters would be silenced and the investments powerful interests have made in the Centennial State’s legislature would be protected.

So there is no reason to be shocked when a bevy of special interests — most notably oil and gas interests, but also gambling interests and other major lobbies — raise and spend over $20 million dollars carpet-bombing the state’s electorate with TV and radio ads, slick mailings, and robo calls to support Amendment 71. They’re trying to convince voters to restrict their own power and increase the legislature’s leverage, since those special interests feel much more “comfortable” with politicians making all the decisions.

And voters making exactly none.

The politicians and lobbyists behind 71 have pulled out all the stops. Big money dominates the airwaves; all four living former state governors are on board; and their TV spots even feature the beloved Hall of Fame Denver Broncos QB John Elway.

But in the end, the beautiful thing about a ballot initiative is that voters have the final say.

And that’s why grassroots groups from throughout the state and all across the leftright spectrum, from the state’s free-market Independence Institute to progressive Common Cause, from pro-TABOR taxpayer groups to more liberal anti-fracking activists, from Colorado NARAL to Colorado Right to Life — those who care about citizens having a say in government — are standing up to the big money establishment barrage, joining the coalition to Stop71.org.

Weeks ago, to kick off the campaign, Citizens in Charge Foundation provided the Vote No on 71 Committee a 10-foot tall, carved, wooden Trojan Horse. The float has been wheeled across the state on a trailer, dramatizing that Amendment 71 is a Trojan Horse from big money interests, who pretend they’re protecting the constitution when they’re actually seeking to restrict citizen power. Providing this focal point has allowed dozens of Colorado citizens to speak out to fellow voters, garnering tons of media attention in the process.

The Trojan Horse continues to reach voters, but like stone soup, the Vote No on 71 campaign has grown in many diverse ways:

  • The head of Common Cause, Elena Nunez, and the head of the Independence Institute, Jon Caldara, have bridged ideological divide to reach out to editorial boards across the state, resulting in the Denver Post and most other major papers editorializing against 71.
  • The Colorado League of Responsible Voters raised several hundred thousand dollars and is running a TV spot countering the millions spent by proponents.
  • The Greenpeace blimp floats over the state, sending the Vote No on 71 message airborne.
  • The coalition has grown to more than 76 groups, each contacting its membership and urging folks to spread the word against 71.
  • A number of groups are advertising against 71 on Facebook.
  • A volunteer phone bank has been set up making thousands of calls to likely voters.

As this election winds down, we know we’re underdogs against the big-shots and their big money. But we also know we cannot let them kill the initiative without a fight. And we know that if we can reach enough Colorado voters with our message against Amendment 71, we can defeat it.

Help us reach more Colorado voters. The best way you can help is to make a financial gift right now. Today. The hour is very late, some voters have already cast their ballots, more are voting every day up until Nov. 8.

Please don’t let them kill Colorado. Help now:

  • Your $50 giftcovers gas for the Trojan Horse to reach another town
  • Your $100 giftpays to put 1,000 flyers on voters’ doorknobs.
  • Your $500 gift – launches Facebook ads reaching 5,000 voters or more.
  • Your $1,000 giftpays for robo phone calls to 10,000 folks who haven’t voted yet, reminding them to vote NO on Amendment 71.

Please give what you can. And take action now.

Can’t afford to give? How about giving your time?

Join our volunteer phone bank and dedicate a few hours one night this week or over the weekend to call likely Colorado voters between 4 pm and 8 pm Mountain Time. You can sign up here for two or four hour shifts and we’ll walk you through how it works.

You do NOT have to live in Colorado to pick up the phone and educate Rocky Mountain State voters about Amendment 71.
Those pushing Amendment 71 claim they want to protect the state constitution from “too many” amendments. But where’s the problem? They won’t say what amendments they believe don’t belong in the constitution.

No, they aren’t seeking to protect Colorado’s constitution, but rather Colorado’s political establishment.

The good guys, Colorado citizens, have taken aim to shoot down Amendment 71. They’ll save the initiative and good government . . . if you’ll pass the ammunition.

This is Common Sense. Thanks for your serious consideration. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Printable PDF

TABOR, Amendment 71, Colorado, Raise the Bar, initiative, voter rights, Taxpayer Bill of Rights,

 

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

The Problem with Ruth Marcus

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

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 crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture judiciary national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

The Best Case for Trump Isn’t

I support neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump for the presidency. Still, I do understand several reasons to vote for Trump, including, most obviously, “he’s not a Clinton.”

The most persuasive strategic reason given for voting for the man, however, and the one that has most purchase with me, is that he would appoint better Supreme Court justices than would Mrs. Clinton.

Note: if the Democrats gain hold of the U.S. Senate, an elected Donald Trump would “negotiate.” And the next set of Supremes might be quite bad.

But is all this irrelevant? It does not look like Trump will be elected, so any vote thrown at him will be just as “wasted” as a vote for Johnson, Stein, or Mickey Mouse.

More importantly, if Hillary wins, no biggie on the Supreme Court front IF (a big “if”?) the Republicans maintain congressional dominance.

Why?

Our Senators are not required to vote for any of a president’s appointees. But, alas, that is not what Democrats are saying now! Forget such self-serving nonsense. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court. It is nine now, sure, but the Highest court in the land was first manned by five justices, then seven.

So, after the election, unpack the court.* Back down to seven, at least.

And then let’s talk terms for the currently “serving for life” justices, and term limits.

In any case, the best case for Trump isn’t so much a case for him, as a plan of action no matter who is elected.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*This notion is more doable, I think, than Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s infamous court packing scheme, in which he threatened to put more justices in to over-rule those justices who thought his “New Deal” program unconstitutional. Congress, not required to vote in any proposed Supreme Court candidate, could balk at all and then, by law, reduce the number, even removing one justice from office if need be.


Printable PDF

Supreme Court, Congress, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, election, illustration

 



Questions Answered:
Does the best reason to vote for Donald Trump really hold water?
Does the Constitution specify the number of justices that should be on the Court?
Is Congress really at the mercy of any bully who occupies the Oval Office?

Ask the next question. --Theodore SturgeonThe Next Question:
Will voting for someone other than Trump be more of a “wasted vote” than voting for Trump himself, if, as polls indicate, he loses?

 

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

A Leaner Bear

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
nannyism national politics & policies political challengers too much government

Precedents for Hillary

That grin. That cackle. Please: No more!

While there is much to be said against Donald Trump, and I’ve said some of it, the sheer unlikability and . . . distastefulness . . . of Hillary Clinton is . . . precedented.

Historically, she reminds me of two past Republican presidential candidates: Richard Milhous Nixon (1913-1994) and James G. Blaine (1830-1893).

Nixon was a power-lusting careerist — just like Mrs. Clinton. Both made runs for office and were brushed aside before ultimate success. Clinton lost the Democratic nod to Obama in 2008; Nixon famously lost the presidential race to John F. Kennedy in 1960, and then went on to lose a governor’s race in California — to the current governor’s father.

But he got in when the Democratic Party was divided over the Vietnam War. If Clinton gets in it will be largely the result of Republican disarray, not her own sparkling personality and charm.

‘Crooked’ Hillary, like ‘Tricky Dick,’ demonstrates extreme social awkwardness as well no small trouble keeping her temper, and being likable. Both are probably best defined as misanthropes. That was Florence King’s judgment of Nixon, and I’d concur regarding Hillary.

But, in terms of corruption, could Hillary be worse than Nixon?

Surely, she’s not as corrupt as James G. Blaine was. Indeed, it was this Maine politician’s outrageous corruption that led to his undoing, and to the election of Democrat Grover Cleveland — despite Cleveland’s sex scandal.

Win or lose, Hillary will have made history, but it won’t be for her gender. Instead, for her striking similarity to past . . . deplorables.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Hillary, Nixon, president, awkward, hated, illustration

 

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

The Un-gaffe-able Hillary Clinton

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

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
ballot access national politics & policies political challengers

Question 5 Fixes Flaw

This week, Krist Novoselic, rock-n-roll bassist of Nirvana fame and fellow board member of FairVote.org, appeared on Fox Business’s Kennedy to explain ranked choice voting.

Krist compared a single ranked ballot under the proposed system to two ballots under the current method. Often, a voter will mark the ballot for one candidate in the primary, and, if the candidate doesn’t make the cut, for another in the general election.

Ranked choice voting sort of collapses multi-candidate primaries and the shorter list of the general election into one, allowing voters to rank their choices so that when their first choice doesn’t make it, their less valued candidates get counted.

So if you prefer a candidate unlikely to win you aren’t “wasting” your vote by marking that candidate first, as today in most American elections, because your vote goes to your second choice.

The current system encourages “strategic voting,” where we deny our preferences to work around the defects of the electoral system. We end up voting for candidates we do not like, to avoid even worse, promoting mediocre and downright bad elected officials.

In Maine, Question 5 on the November ballot, sets up a ranked-choice ballot system for “the offices of United States Senator, United States Representative to Congress, Governor, State Senator and State Representative for elections held on or after January 1, 2018.” It has a not insignificant amount of support, from Mainers across the political spectrum.

But not from the state’s governor (and voicemail-performance-artist) Paul Le Page. He dubs it a way for “loser” candidates to get a “second chance.”

Just like a politician! He focuses on politicians’ chances not voters’ options.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

fairvote, Krist Novoselic, Nirvana, voting, democracy, illustration