Jon Caldara interviews an expert on Measure 71 and the whole initiative and referendum issue, statewide, nationwide:
Categories
Video: Colorado’s 71
On October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus the Great entered the city of Babylon as conqueror. His general policy of religion toleration would be extended to the Jews, who were not long after allowed to return to their homeland.
On the same date in 1923 AD, the Ottomon Empire’s dissolution marked the start of the Turkish Republic.
Categories
James Huneker
The penalty of misrepresentation and misinterpretation seems to be attached to every new idea that comes to birth through the utterances of genius.
James Huneker, in Egoists: A Book of Supermen (1913), p. 256.
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.
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?
The Next Question:
If pigs could fly, which one would you vote for?
Categories
Maria Edgeworth
Surely it is much more generous to forgive and remember, than to forgive and forget.
Maria Edgeworth, “An Essay on the Noble Science of Self-Justification” in Tales and Novels, vol. 1, p. 213.
Categories
Statue of Liberty
On October 28, 1886, in New York Harbor, the Statue of Liberty was dedicated by President Grover Cleveland, despite the fact that the monument was not a federally funded project.
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.
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?
The 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
James Huneker
Socialism is but the further screwing up of the State machine to limit the individual.
James Huneker, in Egoists: A Book of Supermen (1913), p. 364.
Categories
Reagan and Goldwater
On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan delivered a speech on behalf of Republican candidate for president, Barry Goldwater, thereby launching Reagan’s political career. The speech came to be known as “A Time for Choosing.”
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.
Questions Answered:
Is Russia a threat?
Why are Democrats obsessed with Russia?
Why is Russia reducing its military budget?
Ask The Next Question:
What kind of defense should a free people insist upon?