Tag: Democrats

national politics & policies too much government

A Modest Anti-Capitalism?

Post author By Editor
Post date July 10, 2020
No Comments on A Modest Anti-Capitalism?

Socialists are so “modest”!

But how modest?

Ask Rep. Ilhan Omar, who recently proclaimed to be “fighting to tear down systems of oppression that exist in housing, in education, in health care, in employment, in the air we breathe.”

Gasp?

Well, maybe that isn’t so clear. So listen to Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant.

“I have a message for Jeff Bezos and his class,” Sawant warned. “If you attempt again to overturn the Amazon Tax, working people will go all out in the thousands to beat you. And we will not stop there.”

Does that sound like a threat? Or is it really just a harmless expression of politics-as-usual?

“You see, we are fighting for far more than this tax,” the self-proclaimed socialist elaborated. “We are preparing the ground for a different kind of society, and if you, Jeff Bezos, want to drive that process forward by lashing out against us in our modest demands, then so be it. Because we are coming for you and your rotten system. We are coming to dismantle this deeply oppressive, racist, sexist, violent, utterly bankrupt system of capitalism. This police state. We cannot and will not stop until we overthrow it, and replace it with a world based, instead, on solidarity, genuine democracy, and equality: a socialist world. Thank you.”

And thank you, Ms. Sawant, for making yourself ultra-understandable.

You want to destroy private property and free markets and robust political debate and replace them with . . . well, let’s just say that if you complain about a police state now, wait’ll you get a load of what follows from your “modest” demands.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Communism, Democrats, Sawant, Seattle, socialism, the left

insider corruption national politics & policies

Rage Against the Machine

Tulsi Gabbard, Democrats, socialism, moderates,

The Democratic Insider Machine’s pushing of sorta senile Biden against socialist Sanders is quite breathtaking.

But that isn’t even the entirety of the Machine’s anti-democratic agenda.

“The establishment narrative warfare against [Representative Tulsi] Gabbard’s campaign dwarfs anything we’ve seen against Sanders,” writes Caitlin Johnstone on her popular blog, “and the loathing and dismissal they’ve been able to generate have severely hamstrung her run.”

No kidding. But why would the Machine prefer Sanders over Gabbard?

“It turns out that a presidential candidate can get away with talking about economic justice and plutocracy when it comes to domestic policy,” Ms. Johnstone goes on, “and some light dissent on matters of foreign policy will be tolerated, but aggressively attacking the heart of the actual bipartisan foreign policy consensus will get you shut down, smeared and shunned like nothing else.”

This pro-war, anti-Tulsi agenda was seen right after SuperTuesday.

You see, Representative Gabbard got a delegate, from American Samoa (where Michael Bloomberg’s vast fortune also nabbed a delegate). And, by the rules that have been followed so far, a delegate gets you onto the big debate stage.

But almost immediately, word from the Democratic National Committee hit the Twittersphere: “We have two more debates — of course the threshold will go up. By the time we have the March debate, almost 2,000 delegates will be allocated. The threshold will reflect where we are in the race, as it always has.”

The DNC — the Machine — is rewriting the rules.

Tulsi must not speak.

Even if her competence and ecumenical appeal might actually save the Democratic Party, were her name to replace Biden and Sanders in the second or third voting round of a contested convention.

Such a fierce opponent of regime-change wars is obviously unacceptable to the Machine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Democrats, moderates, socialism, Tulsi Gabbard

ideological culture national politics & policies

The Blue Plate Special

Blue Plate Special, Democrats, socialism,

The biggest stories don’t always come in threes, but they sure did this week.

The Iowa Democratic Caucus debacle, President Trump’s State of the Union Address, and the Senate’s acquittal of the president after the House’s impeachment — big stories of big losses for Democrats.

As I write this, we still lack a “winner” on the Democratic side in Iowa. Blame is publicly given to the goofy “app” the Iowa Democratic Party bought to make the caucusing and counting oh-so-much easier. But I wouldn’t blame Bernie supporters for engaging in a little conspiracy conjecturing — the maker of the app has close ties to the Clinton machine.

And if you cannot sniff a concerted anti-Bernie agenda on the part of establishment Democrats, your sniffer is broken.

Indeed, The Young Turks ably showed how major-media news sources skew stories away from the socialist from Vermont — by emphasizing the candidacies of Biden and Buttigieg.*

One can see why centrist Democrats would want to scuttle a serious socialist movement within their party, but it may be too little too late. After decades of courting the Gimme-Gimme vote with Loot the Rich demagoguery, socialistic attitudes have long been on the menu. So getting a hot, steaming socialism served back at them as a Blue Plate Special?

Priceless.

Literally.

But not costless.

For the cost is reasonability and decorum. After Trump ceased speaking before Congress yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi ripped up copies of the president’s address just to show her disdain for the president.

But it also shows frustration. The speech is over. Impeachment is over. Iowa is, incredibly, not yet over. And Pelosi’s party — under her guidance — is in complete and utter disarray.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Ana Kasparian makes a pretty convincing case that Senator Bernie Sanders is the most popular of the three, and could even bring in independent voters.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Blue Plate Special, Democrats, socialism

insider corruption international affairs national politics & policies

The Democrats’ Wrong Number

Post author By Redactor
Post date October 14, 2019
1 Comment on The Democrats’ Wrong Number

Donald Trump, telephone, phone call, impeachment,

“Where’s Hunter?” Donald Trump asks in front of his pro-Trump rallies (and of course on Twitter), referring to Joe Biden’s son and his cushy Ukrainian sinecure.

From the beginning of the Phone Call quasi-scandal, the upshot sure seemed to portend disaster for the Democrats, in general, and Biden’s presidential bid in particular — for, nested in the secrecies of Ukrainian corruption are not only the ties to the Biden Family Biz, but also perhaps to the conspiracy behind the Russiagate fizzle.

Surely, President Trump cannot kill two birds with one phone.

Impeaching him, however, still seems risky — for Democrats.

Mark Tapscott explored just how perilous by focusing on what might happen in the Senate, after a House impeachment. “Trump’s defense lawyers for the trial will have wide latitude to call witnesses and subpoena documents,” wrote Tapscott in late September.* “That could lead to devastating blows damaging Democrats for years to come, which possibility they would be foolhardy not to ponder seriously, given Trump’s love of political fisticuffs.”

Can the party of Big Government afford to publicize the most obvious lesson coming from their hyping of the Phone Call?

The lesson being that the undrained swamp is nothing other than Crony Capitalist Politics As Usual.

No matter how divisive all this may seem, it may prove awfully educational — in the case against Big Government.

Bob Hope had a funny punchline, way back in the Eocene: “Boy, did I get a wrong number.”

In impeaching Trump over a phone call, Democrats may have dialed their destruction.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* See “Assessing the Most Dangerous ‘What Ifs’ of the Democrats’ Impeach Trump Frenzy,” The Epoch Times (September 29, 2019).

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags Democrats, Donald Trump, impeachment

Common Sense general freedom ideological culture

Dependence or Independence?

Post author By Redactor
Post date July 4, 2019
No Comments on Dependence or Independence?

Kamala Harris, debate, Democrats, Fourth of July, Independence Day,

“America does not want to witness a food fight,” Senator Kamala Harris said at last week’s debate, reprimanding her squabbling fellow Democratic Party presidential contenders. “They want to know how we’re going to put food on their table.”

The no doubt well-rehearsed line drew raucous applause. She’s right; we’re not interested in a food fight.

But her second statement struck me as . . . odd . . . and not true.

Harris spoke of how “we” — meaning they, the assembled politicians on the stage — are “going to put food” on “their” — meaning our — tables.

Does she imagine that presidents produce our food, not farmers? Is she trying to say, “You didn’t grow that”?

“Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap,” the author of the Declaration of Independence wrote, “we should soon want bread.”

Perhaps this presidential aspirant remains unaware of how America became a land of abundance? It wasn’t the exertion of career politicians. Or regulators. Or bureaucrats. It was the amazingly productive engine that is a free people.

“Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way,” Henry David Thoreau explained in his famous 1849 essay, entitled Resistance to Civil Government. “The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished.”

The difference between a society where people honor independence and one where, conversely, they idolize dependence on the government is the difference between bright day and darkest night.

Today’s date is July 4th, but the holiday is Independence Day. It is not a celebration of dependence on cradle-to-grave big brother government. We celebrate freedom for the individual.

A Republic . . . if We, the People can keep it.

But how? How do we restore freedoms lost while retaining extant freedoms?

Well, with ideas. Arguments. Promotion of others’ efforts.

And for two decades, this daily commentary has defended freedom and those fighting for it. And I hope to keep the Common Sense coming far into the future.

Yet, this effort is totally dependent on you — and your generosity. In this 20th year, won’t you make a special pledge of $20? Or $200? Or $2,000 if you have the financial freedom to do so.

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must,” wrote Tom Paine in 1777, “undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

Don’t worry, it won’t be so fatiguing. We stand up for freedom and against dependence on big government — with a rhetorical flourish now and again . . . and a sense of humor.

Please pass the ammunition. And no food fight.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags debate, Democrats, Fourth of July, Independence Day, Kamala Harris

incumbents political challengers term limits

Knock Down the Incumbency

Knock Down the House, socialism, term limits,

Over the weekend, I suffered through Knock Down the House . . . so you don’t have to.

While the documentary heralding four inexperienced Democratic women running for Congress in 2018 cost Netflix $10 million, I did not have to spend a dime — beyond my regular monthly subscription.

The award-winning film, directed by Rachel Lears, who wrote it along with her husband, Robin Blotnick, is expertly crafted. Unfortunately, it is geared to democratic socialists predisposed to adoring the subjects.

The star is now Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who defeated then Rep. Joe Crowley, a ten-term, 20-year incumbent . . . the Number 4 Democrat in the House of Representatives.

In addition to Ocasio-Cortez, the movie follows Amy Vilela, seeking to replace a retiring Nevada Democrat; Cori Bush, challenging the Clay Family’s hereditary congressional dynasty in Missouri’s 1st district*; and Paula Jean Swearengin, battling incumbent Sen. Joe Machin in West Virginia’s Democratic Party Primary. Of the four challengers chronicled, all of whom received extensive support from two progressive groups, Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress, AOC was the only winner.

“Let’s assume all the energy in this room can get you on the ballot and into office,” offers a fellow at one of Ocasio-Cortez’s early meetings. “How, then, do we overcome the drop in power?”

“I think we really need to have to look at what that power does now,” AOC responds. “When it matters, [Rep. Crowley] doesn’t stand up for us; when it matters, he doesn’t advocate for our interests.”

Whatever one thinks of AOC’s politics, her point here is not without merit: the idea that we citizens benefit from longtime incumbents who ‘bring home the bacon’ is . . . baloney.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* At the completion of this term, Rep. Lacy Clay, Ms. Bush’s opponent, will have served 20 years. His father, Bill Clay, held the seat for 32 years before that. Together, over half a century. The film alludes to the fact that Clay Jr. gained the seat in 2000 only after the surprise retirement of Clay Sr. on the very last day to file for the office . . . with Jr. filing, instead.

PDF for printing