Category: political challengers

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

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom government transparency moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest responsibility too much government

How Insidious the Plot?

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

The story of the Wisconsin John Doe raids against conservatives, covered yesterday and the day before, is a big one. Huge. So I now continue.

The rest of the story? Recently, materials that police seized from the subjects of those dawn raids were leaked, illegally, to the Guardian newspaper — in direct violation of a court order. Yet more lawlessness.

Who leaked this information? Well, it was in the possession of the Milwaukee County prosecutors, and they haven’t alleged a Russian hack.

What’s really going on? Eric O’Keefe stated on Monday that “even though they never brought a charge, the prosecutors did achieve one of their major goals: the unlawful seizure of millions of private communications to create a searchable database of political intelligence spanning Wisconsin and the entire country.”

In short, the abusive investigation was part and parcel of a partisan effort.

State Rep. Dave Craig is urging the creation of a special legislative committee to “take sworn testimony . . . to determine whether those charged with the public trust have acted maliciously by intentionally leaking sealed materials in violation of state policy.”

It’s important that justice be done. To prevent future tyranny.

We don’t want to see a repeat of the IRS abuse of Tea Party groups without anyone being held to account.*

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Speaking of the IRS, it turns out that the head of Wisconsin’s Government Accountability Board (GAB) was a pal of Lois Lerner, who headed the IRS division responsible for violating the civil rights of Tea Party groups — before she took the Fifth, refusing to testify before Congress and then retiring with a six-figure pension. Further, there is evidence the GAB may have illegally provided confidential information to the IRS in hopes of getting the Feds to join in harassing these conservative groups.

 

FOR MORE ON THIS INCREDIBLE STORY

Printable PDF

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers Regulating Protest responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

A Morning After

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

Yesterday we celebrated the end to “a disgraceful episode in Wisconsin history” — the dawn police raids of the so-called John Doe investigations against conservatives alleged to have violated campaign finance regulations.

State and federal courts ruled that no laws were broken and some laws were unconstitutional — certainly Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm’s prosecutorial methods violated the rights of citizens the court called innocent.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, announced Monday, not to hear Chisholm’s appeal thankfully ends this particular reign of error and terror.

So what have we learned?

First, courage is contagious. Had Eric O’Keefe with the Wisconsin Club for Growth not bravely spoken out, others would have remained quiet, and the prosecutors might have gotten away with what National Review’s David French called “a pure intimidation tactic to try to terrify conservatives into silence.”

Another unmistakable conclusion: yes indeed, it can happen here.

It has.

Obviously.

And if changes are not made, it will happen again.

Reforms have already been won. Not only is the John Doe investigation shut down, the law was changed, allowing for no more John Doe attacks. The Government Accountability Board, found to have acted from partisan motives, has been completely disbanded and new ethics bodies formed.

Another avenue of correction comes through the courts. The MacIver Institute filed a class-action lawsuit against Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm and others for illegally seizing documents, and Cindy Archer, whose home was raided by police, has filed a civil rights lawsuit.

Ms. Archer’s suit was dismissed after a federal judge ruled that the prosecutors had immunity. But that dismissal is now on appeal before the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The prosecutors will go to court . . . as defendants.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

The Choice That Isn’t

politics, Obama, Hiillary Clinton, lies, elections, FBI Director, James Comey, war president

Americans are used to being betrayed by their political representation.

This long series of infidelities has led to the current predicament, where the Republican and Democratic parties present us with the opposite of what most Americans want.

Why this vexing stalemate?

History.

The current Democratic President, Mr. Obama, gained both notoriety and trust for his stance against war. Rank-and-file Democrats rejoiced. The Bush Wars were over!

Nope. Obama grew into his role as war president.

Like his predecessor.

Under his watch, the U.S. expanded regime change to Libya, stretched the Afghanistan incursion into our longest war, and now sends more troops into Iraq. (Sans their boots.)

The peacenik manqué has discovered his talent for killing foreigners. His supporters, in consequence, “cling to” his other paltry achievements: a weak, ephemeral recovery; the imperiled, perilous Obamacare.

And a long series of lectures.

No wonder Democrats are demoralized enough to vote for hawkish Hillary Clinton, the least qualified presidential candidate in American history.

But wait, Obama hath ballyhooed: she is “the most qualified”!

Why “least”?

Because FBI Director James Comey just admitted* that any underling of his that had behaved as recklessly as she had with national security would be “disciplined” and “in big trouble.”

Instead, Americans may wind up hiring her . . . for Commander in Chief!

Republicans, on the other hand, have enthusiastically kicked at that “small government” football so many times, only to witness their “leaders” yank it away. Have they now given up? Donald Trump has no interest in limiting government; he talks of new spending programs.

With a “choice that isn’t” in these two losers, no wonder “we don’t win anymore.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*Comey’s exact words, in July, were “They might get fired, they might lose their clearance” — expertly hedging with those mights — “There would be some discipline.” Though he could find no evidence of intent to commit a criminal act, Comey did judge Mrs. Clinton “extremely careless” and “negligent.”

Printable PDF

politics, Obama, Hiillary Clinton, lies, elections, FBI Director, James Comey, war president

 

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

How to Corrupt Politicians Without Really Trying

politicians, public servants, service,

In a Townhall.com column last January, I argued that politicians weren’t “stupid,” as Mr. Trump had loudly proclaimed — to few objections.

The problem is worse: too many politicians lack honesty and integrity. They’re in the politics biz for their own lucrative ends.

Six weeks ago, I declared — again, to few objections — that “Politicians Must Suffer.” Despite the provocative, sizzling-with-Schadenfreude title, my point was simple: “lavish pay, pensions and other benefits for city councilmen, state legislators and congressmen constitute a serious problem.”

“It breeds,” I added, “bad behavior when politicians line their own pockets. . . .”

Well, I’m right.

At least, I’ve got some academic back-up from a new study by Mitchell Hoffman of the University of Toronto and Elizabeth Lyons of the University of California-San Diego, entitled, “A Time to Make Laws and a Time to Fundraise? On the Relation Between Salaries and Time Use for State Politicians.”

Sounds like a fascinating read, eh?

“Using data on time use and legislator salaries, we show that higher salary is associated with legislators spending more time on fundraising,” the study’s abstract reads. “In contrast, higher salary is also associated with less time spent on legislative activities and has no clear relation to time spent on constituent services.” [Emphasis added]

While their study jives with my experience, the Wall Street Journal reports that others were surprised. Authors Hoffman and Lyons explain: “When salaries are higher, politicians face a greater incentive to get re-elected (as the value of serving in office is greater). Thus, they will optimally respond by increasing the time spent on fundraising.”

Sounds like in addition to lower pay for politicians, we need term limits, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

politicians, public servants, service,

 

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

The Crooked News Network

HIllary Clinton, CNN, bomb, bombing, bias, illustration

A recent Gallup poll found Americans’ trust in their news media has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded. Only 32 percent expressed either “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of confidence in the press “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly.”

Trust among Republican is down to a mere 14 percent.

Sad statistics . . . but not surprising. Remember Rathergate in 2004?

Over the weekend, CNN earned its “Clinton News Network” nickname by blatantly misreporting Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s responses to the terrorist bombings in New York and New Jersey.

Both candidates initially called these incidents “bombings” — even before government officials had definitively confirmed the obvious. But in its reports, CNN edited out Mrs. Clinton’s remarks to that effect and ran with the angle that Mr. Trump was irresponsible for saying . . . well, what she said.

“The press has since largely slammed Trump for referring to the explosion as a ‘bomb’ too soon,” reported The Hill, adding that major media outlets have somehow “also failed to mention Clinton in focusing on Trump.”

Some blame the public’s low esteem for the media on Mr. Trump’s scathing attacks. The Donald dubbed CNN, for example, “disgusting and disgraceful” over this latest controversy.

He’s right.

Enough. CNN’s desire to propagate stories favorable to one candidate and unfavorable to another has spiraled down to the withholding of relevant information, for no better reason than to mislead the public. As a news junkie with an itchy trigger finger on my TV remote, I’ve stopped clicking over to CNN.

Now, Anthony Bourdain’s Parts Unknown will be even more so.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

HIllary Clinton, CNN, bomb, bombing, bias, illustration

 

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

Serving the Voters

debates, presidential, Gary Johnson, phone number, Commission on Presidential Debates, illustration

Who will choose the next president of these United States?

Voters? A private non-profit organization? The media? The Electoral College? The U.S. House of Representatives?

Russian hackers?

No joke, that last. Beyond the suspected Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee, the FBI warned last week that hackers, likely Russian, had broken into the online election systems of Arizona and Illinois.

Earlier this week, and months ago, I floated the possibility that Libertarian Gary Johnson could win New Mexico, where he served two terms as governor. Currently polling at 25 percent, a New Mexico win might prevent any candidate from obtaining an electoral majority, throwing the election into the House of Representatives.

Not likely. But possible. After all, by the Constitution, what actually determines who will be president is the Electoral College. Its elected electors vote in December. And, as attorneys David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman remind us in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, those electors can vote their conscience.

But first, voters must decide. Vote their consciences, based on good information not predigested by the press and the insider class.*

Which means people need to hear from each candidate who can be elected president. The partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has no right to narrow our choices by holding a closed debate.

A series of polls before voters have even evaluated their choices ought not pre-determine the election.

Tell the Commission on Presidential Debates (202-872-1020) to open the debates to all viable candidates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*The media made a mountain out of Gov. Johnson’s gaffe yesterday morning, not knowing immediately what MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle was asking concerning “Aleppo.” Johnson seemed to think it an acronym for some government agency, instead of a besieged Syrian metropolis. But consider it a sign the media is paying attention. Meanwhile, Green Party nominee Jill Stein became the first candidate charged with a crime — vandalism — for spray painting “I approve this message” on a bulldozer used to build a pipeline.

Printable PDF

debates, presidential, Gary Johnson, phone number, Commission on Presidential Debates, illustration

 

Categories
ballot access ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The Stupidity of 15

President, Presidential, vote, House of Representatives, tie, illustration

Most Americans think there are only two choices for the presidency. And will thus vote for either Clinton or Trump.

They are wrong. There are two popular minor party contenders, and one will even be on all 50 state ballots.

In other election cycles, one could argue that a “third party” candidate has no reasonable chance to win — so, just ignore.

A self-fulfilling criterion?

Sure. But it works . . . for the major parties.

This cycle, however, it just doesn’t apply. A third party-candidate could indeed become the next president . . . even without capturing 15 percent nationally in the polls . . . or, get this, in the actual voting!

Confused?

Founded and run by Republican and Democrat bigwigs, the private non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is not an honest broker. The CPD’s 15 percent national polling threshold for inclusion in the debates neglects a crucial fact: presidential electors aren’t won nationally, but by winning states.

According to the latest Washington Post/SurveyMonkey poll, the Libertarian candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, isn’t polling quite 15 percent nationally. But he is polling 25 percent in his home state, where Trump is at 29 and Clinton at 37 percent.

Yes, Johnson is within striking distance to win New Mexico’s five electoral votes.

If Johnson does win there, and Trump keeps it close, winning say Ohio and Florida, no candidate may gain a majority of the Electoral College. The presidential contest would be thrown into the House of Representatives, the first time since 1824! With each state delegation casting one vote, Johnson could serve as the compromise, even consensus, choice.

It seems to me that the next president ought to be in the debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

President, Presidential, vote, House of Representatives, tie, illustration

 

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

A Suit of a Different Color

Melania, Donald, Trump, daily mail, scandal, sex worker, illustration

Donald Trump has threatened to use lawsuits against people he says are lying about him. Even if elected President.

Well, enter the third Mrs. Donald Trump, Melania. She is suing Britain’s Daily Mail* for suggesting that she may have worked as a “part time escort in New York,” explains the BBC, “and met husband Donald Trump, who is now running for the White House, earlier than previously reported.”

We know from published nude photographs that she was in the U.S. before the time specified by her presidential-hopeful husband. And for some, those nude photographs lend credence to a rumor about escort service work. (She’s made money for being photographed in sexual congress before.)

The Daily Mail has withdrawn its article, insisting that it had not “suggested the sex work claims were true but said that, even if false, they could affect the US presidential campaign.” Sounds like a defense to me.

Earlier this week I confessed to my lack of accounting expertise. Now I should do the same regarding law. Yet, the claim by the Trumps’ lawyer, Charles Harder, seems hard to take seriously — that is, that the defendants’ statements were “so egregious, malicious and harmful to Mrs. Trump that her damages are estimated at $150 million dollars.”

Really? That much?

Besides, it’s her husband’s career on the line. And a sex morals rumor about Mrs. Trump wilts next to the long list of rumors and established fact in the scandal department of actual candidate (and former First Lady) Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Seems with either major party candidate, we’re guaranteed a soap opera . . . and full employment for lawyers.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* She is also suing an American blogger.

Printable PDF

Melania, Donald, Trump, daily mail, scandal, sex worker, illustration