Tag: Marco Rubio

Categories
international affairs media and media people

Gain of Dysfunction

Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland

Early in Putin’s war, rumors and assertions and “memes” about Russian forces attacking U.S. bioweapons labs in Ukraine quickly spread online.

The corporate press’s “official” “fact” “checkers” mocked the idea, of course. 

But then something . . . inconvenient . . . happened. Senator Marco Rubio asked Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland point blank: “Does Ukraine have chemical and biological weapons?”

Her response was not, as Glenn Greenwald notes, what he was expecting. “Ukraine has biological research facilities,” she answered,* “which, we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.”

It turns out that the United States has long been working with Ukraine “to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats.” And the relationship between defensive biological research and offensive is quite close, Greenwald suggests: “research that is classified as ‘defensive’ can easily be converted, deliberately or otherwise, into extremely destructive biological weapons.”

If this is at all puzzling, note those fact-checkers, again. These “defensive” warriors in the memetic arena are supposed to serve as antibodies to “misinformation” in the realm of spreadable ideas. By reflexively debunking any new attack on accepted government-approved opinion, they serve as spreaders of their own misinformation.

As in the war of ideas, so in the war of biological contagions.

The next question is: Does it make sense to place our labs on the border of our enemy?

But then, I thought it was a bad idea to subsidize biological research laboratories in Wuhan, China.

Our leaders think they know better.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Greenwald leaves in Nuland’s uh-stutters and the like. I’ve cut them.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment education and schooling national politics & policies responsibility U.S. Constitution

Will Feds Foil Foolish Licensing?

Marco Rubio, Elizabeth Warren, student, loan, debt, Florida, federalism, states, federal, law, college loan

It would be nice if the federal government used its often-abused authority over state and local governments to outlaw various forms of state and local oppression.

In his book Leviathan: The Growth of Local Government and the Erosion of Liberty, Clint Bolick argues that the federal government is not alone in hugely violating individual rights. Eminent domain, asset forfeiture, zoning, and occupational licensing are among the modes of sub-federal assault on the innocent. Even as policymakers in various regions of the land act to stop the worst of these abuses, they proceed unchecked elsewhere.

U.S. Senators Marco Rubio and Democrat Elizabeth Warren are the unlikely duo who may interrupt the now-common practice of depriving delinquent borrowers of student loans of their right to earn a living from certain trades. Rubio recently admitted on Twitter that as a Florida lawmaker, he once voted to allow the state “to suspend professional licenses of those who defaulted on student loans. I WAS WRONG. . . . How can they pay back if they can’t work?”

Yes, Rubio was wrong.

Senator Warren, for her part, agrees that the practice is “wrong and counterproductive.”

The bi-partisan duo’s bill would prohibit states from denying driver’s licenses and occupational licenses to borrowers who default on student loans.

I don’t think the legislation goes as far as it should, even in the delimited area of occupational licensing. The absurdities of occupational licensing go way beyond the scope of the proposed remedy.

But it’s a start.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Photos by Gage Skidmore and Edward Kimmel

 

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

Voting and How

Trump, Rubio, Kasich, election, primary, illustration

Some “ifs” for today.

If I were a Republican and if I were voting in Ohio or Florida, both winner-take-all on the Republican side, and if I wanted to stop Donald Trump, I’d vote for Kasich in Ohio — or, were I a Florida resident, for Rubio.

If I were for Cruz, I might prefer that both Governor John Kasich and Senator Marco Rubio drop out. But on reflection, I don’t think so. Trump picking up 165 delegates in two fell swoops probably cannot be made up at this point, even one-on-one.

So Sen. Marco Rubio was probably wise last week to acknowledge what seems the truth: “John Kasich is the only one who can beat Donald Trump in Ohio. If a voter in Ohio is motivated by stopping Donald Trump, I suspect that’s the only choice they can make.”

Of course, Mr. Rubio wants Kasich voters in the Sunshine State to likewise switch to him, because, “I’m the only one who can beat Trump in Florida.”

A spokesman for Gov. Kasich of Ohio was having none of it: “We were going to win in Ohio without his help, just as he’s going to lose in Florida without ours.”

Still, a Kasich super PAC is robo-dialing Ohio voters with the news that Rubio suggests they vote for Kasich.

We can outsmart ourselves sometimes with strategic voting, sure. As a general rule I prefer to vote for the person I think is best. But sometimes there are elections wherein the word “best” just doesn’t seem to apply.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Trump, Rubio, Kasich, election, primary, illustration

 

Categories
folly ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies too much government

That’s Entertainment

presidential, debates, candidates, three stooges, illustration

This presidential campaign has been very entertaining.

The three leading Republican candidates could give The Three Stooges a run for their money. Front-runner Donald Trump calls his opponents liars and chokers (or “chockers”) as often as Moe used to smash Curly and Larry in the face.

Slapstick has made a comeback.

Indeed, food fights attract a large TV audience, obviously giving many viewers what they want. And they no doubt produce windfall advertising profits for the television networks that host the debates.

This may be as close to creating economic growth as these politicians will ever come.

No surprise that the media is giddy at the mud-slinging, but why do the candidates go along? Nastiness apparently works.

At least in attracting media attention.

Mr. Trump has dominated the news cycles for months, cycling outrageous statements and cutting remarks, rinse and repeat. As Sen. Marco Rubio explained to those questioning his recent resort to dishing out invective, “I’m insulting Trump because it’s the only thing you [media] guys pay attention to.”

Even the debate rules actively encourage pugilism. By giving candidates additional time to speak when verbally assaulted by name, the ground rules are in place.

No wonder the mostly ignored Dr. Ben Carson interjected during the last debate, “Can somebody attack me, please?”

Neophyte Carson doesn’t understand that the game is tit-for-tat: to be attacked, attack first.

Sure, the critical issues facing our country — terrorism, war, debt, economic stagnation — get short shrift. But what a fun way to choose the next stooge to sit atop the dysfunction.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

presidential, debates, candidates, three stooges, illustration

 

A healthy democracy depends on the spreading of good ideas. If you found this article useful,  please share it with friends by clicking on any of the social media icons below.

Common Sense Needs Your Help!

Also, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies

Needless List?

Marco Rubio, draft, selective service

Are Republican presidential candidates getting the NFL draft and the military draft confused?

Get drafted by the NFL and you’re a millionaire. Participation is voluntary. Get “chosen” by the Selective Service System for the military draft and you could wind up in combat. Participation is involuntary.

Last Sunday at Townhall, I wondered why Republican presidential candidates keep talking about registering young females for a future draft like they are bestowing some great benefit, as if women are clamoring for the equal chance to be conscripted.

Sen. Marco Rubio first agreed that draft registration should be expanded to women. He then elaborated, “I’m open to Selective Service being opened up to women that want to be a part of it.”

Wait a second . . . the current male-only draft registration isn’t optional. It’s mandatory — under the threat of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. This I know first-hand.

After Sen. Ted Cruz suggested Rubio and other presidential contenders were “nuts” to support forcing women to register, Rubio tried to explain on Fox News Sunday: “What I’ve never said and I don’t support is that we are going to draft women and force them into combat roles. That’s absurd.”

The senator volunteered that he did not “believe anyone ever will” be drafted, because “that’s not the nature of modern warfare.”

“I’m actually in favor of a volunteer armed forces,” he told host Chris Wallace. “I’m not even sure we need Selective Service anymore.”

Calling it “just a registry of names for a draft that’s never going to happen,” Rubio added, “I don’t know why we still have Selective Service.”

Me neither.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Marco Rubio, draft, selective service

 

Common Sense Needs Your Help!
If you enjoyed this article, please consider showing your appreciation by dropping something in our tip jar  (this link will take you to the Citizens in Charge donation page… and your contribution will go to the support of the Common Sense website). Maintaining this site takes time and money. Your help in spreading the message of common sense and liberty is very much appreciated!

 

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom media and media people

The Ultimate SuperPAC

SuerPac, Marco Rubio, Biased Media, Republican Debate, First Amendment, collage, photomontage, illustration, Common Sense, Jim Gill, Paul Jacob

Sen. Marco Rubio’s charge in last week’s presidential debate, that the mainstream media functions as a SuperPAC for Democrats, was not only accurate, I wrote at Townhall, it has deeper implications.

Consider the relentless media drumbeat for restrictive campaign finance regulations.

If the Federal Elections Commission mutes, at Congress’s instruction, voices of the political parties and silences issue-oriented advocacy groups — or such groups are prevented by the IRS from even forming in the first place — and if Democrats get their way and ban SuperPACs (other than the media), who would hold the loudest megaphone?

You guessed it.

The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, NBC News, etc. — corporate behemoths all — warn of the dangers of big, bad corporations and wealthy individuals, hoping to spur regulation that hamstrings the communications of others.

The regulations somehow never involve abridging the speech of those same powerful media outlets.

Last year, every single Democrat in the Senate voted to repeal the essential constitutional guarantee of free speech, voting for Senate Joint Resolution 19, introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).

Had it become part of our Constitution, the First Amendment’s words “Congress shall pass no law” would have been replaced with an open-ended invitation for politicians in Congress to “regulate” campaign spending — therefore speech — to their hearts’ content.

The amendment was so sweeping the authors felt the need to add: “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”

Big Media is a major force promoting Big Government, always willing to attack advocates of a constitutionally limited government.

Except when it comes to constitutional protections for Big Media.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

SuerPac, Marco Rubio, Biased Media, Republican Debate, First Amendment, collage, photomontage, illustration, Common Sense, Jim Gill, Paul Jacob