Mediaboss Marketing

Libertarian: Sen. Warrens Inflation Boogeyman

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is calling for the use of antitrust laws to target grocery retailers, claiming when only a handful of them dominate the market, they can force high food prices on Americans while raking in record profits, notes Reasons Joe Lancaster. Yet the senator could hardly have picked a worse industry to use as an example: Grocery stores consistently have among the lowest profit margins of any economic sector. In fact, the entire retail grocery industry currently averages barely more than 1 percent in net profit. If Warren really wishes to lower grocery prices, she needs to combat inflation by paring back profligate government spending.

From the left: Toddler Parents Unique Burden

Parents of kids under 5 have a knife hanging over our heads, moans Jaime Greene at Slate: Tots must still quarantine for 10 days if exposed to COVID, and a 10-day quarantine is enough to break a person. . . . This is about claustrophobia, and monotony, and how the little things in the world that help parents stay sane a library, a play date, running errands and dragging him along are off the table when youve been exposed. Hes old enough to need friends and playmates, to need the blessed, skilled teachers who can guide a tiny human tornado through a day of activities and circling up and songs. Worse is how the world seems to have utterly forgotten we exist.

Pandemic journal: Joe Missed a Key Opportunity

The Wall Street Journals editors are scratching their heads wondering why the Biden administration failed to order more treatments for COVID-19 sooner. On Tuesday, Team Biden put in for more of GlaxoSmithKline and Vir Biotechnologys monoclonal antibody treatment and Pfizers antiviral Paxlovid. Alas, these treatments will probably arrive after the Omicron COVID variant crests. Yet it was obvious even early in the pandemic that treatments were going to be critical to living with COVID. The Biden folks couldve taken a page out of the Trump administrations playbook, accelerating orders for treatments as President Donald Trump did for vaccine development. Instead, it focused relentlessly on masking, testing and vaccines with therapies as a fourth priority. Living with endemic COVID means therapies are crucial. And having more therapies this winter might have saved thousands of lives.

School beat: Dems Must Break Unions Grip

Chicagos unlawful teachers-union strike exposed an indifference not just to science but to the emotional and academic well-being of more than 340,000 schoolchildren, roar Bloomberg Opinions editors. It also showed why President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders need to break the grip of teachers unions over the countrys public schools or risk irreversible damage to the students who can afford it least. Biden shouldve stood unequivocally against the teachers and with Chicagos students, whove already suffered far too many interruptions in recent years due to labor disputes. Yet he can and should still take other steps to curb union power: The pandemics impact on student learning has been disastrous; its past time for Democratic leaders, starting with the president, to show whose side theyre on.

From the right: Bidens Trumpian Demagoguery

President Joe Biden delivered one of the most demagogic speeches of any modern president on Tuesday, thunders John Fund at Spectator World. You might say it even had Trumpian tones. The president was pushing two bills to nationalize the election process and ban states from enacting their own voter-integrity laws, but the outright lies and vicious smears in this embarrassing spectacle made my head spin. Biden first claimed the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was a coup, which went well beyond the usual hyperbole. Then, almost everything he said after that particularly regarding Georgias new voting law was either untrue, a distortion or blatant exaggeration. Politics is often rough and tumble, with truth being the first casualty, but Bidens distortions did double damage coming from a presidential podium.

Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Read this article:
Elizabeth Warren's inflation boogeyman and other commentary - New York Post

January 14, 2022

January 14, 2022

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) this week announced it would create a new internal unit to focus on domestic terrorism. Citing ethnically and politically motivated killings in El Paso, Pittsburgh, Charleston, and two attacks against Congress Jan. 6 last year and the shooting at a Republican practice session for the annual congressional baseball game in 2017 Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee that countering violent domestic extremists is among DOJ's "highest priorities." The new unit will work closely with the Civil Rights Division,Olsen added, likely to allay civil libertarian fears of government overreach.

Certainly, given the troubling episodes of violence meant to harm or intimidate political opponents and national organizations implicated in those events, a coordinated federal response seems appropriate. Indeed, federal law enforcement is most justifiable when state and local agencies are unable or, in the worst cases, unwilling to effectively protect civil rights and liberties of individuals in their jurisdictions. The federal government is often the organization best positioned to find and prosecute political actors whorepeatedly participate in violent incidents in different jurisdictions across the country.

However, political and ideological views and the right to disseminate and organize around those views no matter how noxious are protected by the Constitution up to the point those actions spur violence or other crimes. Even with the best intentions and staffed with attorneys of the highest integrity from the outset, a domestic terrorism team will be inherentlysusceptible to shifting politics and mission creep that could impermissibly target protected First Amendment activity and violate the due process rights of law-abiding Americans.

This is hardly a baseless worry.Recent history is replete with examples of federal abuses of power that violated the civil liberties of Americans in the name of anti-terrorism.

Most notoriously, the Church Committee investigation revealed how the FBI, CIA, and NSA repeatedly and illegally spied on and undermined protected First Amendment activities as part of the COINTELPRO operation from the 1950s through the early 1970s. Closer to the present day, fear of terrorism led to surveillance of Muslim communities in the United States before 9/11, and famously increased thereafter, including warrantless wiretaps of telephone calls and surveillance of politically active Muslim Americans. Other investigations have led to specious charges against less-than-competent individuals for conspiracies mostly or wholly concocted by law enforcement agents or informants.

Since at least the early 2000s, progressives and civil libertarians repeatedly warned about potential and subsequently confirmed abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Passed in 1978 as a check on executive authority to spy on Americans, the act and the FISA court (or FISC) it created eventually enabled the very behavior they were meant to prevent.

Following 9/11, FISC approved hundreds of requests that resulted, inter alia, in the phone record data collection of millions of Americans with no conceivable tie to terrorism or espionage. Although the post-9/11 abuses started during the George W. Bush administration, and reforms were initially resisted by Republicans, FBI agents later misrepresented evidence to FISC to investigate Carter Page, a Trump campaign advisor, prompting outrage and calls for reform from conservatives.

Presumably, few domestic terror investigations would fall under the purview of FISC and its typically secret proceedings, but the evolution of FISA from a bulwark against government snooping into a conduit for mass data collection is instructive in three key respects.

First, well-intended legislation is not enough to protect American civil liberties. Procedures to implement a law may naturally evolve into patterns and norms that hinder oversight and prevent accountability, especially in institutions not regularly subject to public scrutiny.

Second, particularly within a law enforcement context, any investigating agency will necessarily try to gather as much information as it can, even to the point of taking in more data than it can reasonably handle. This is not because law enforcement is inherently bad; rather, the essence of investigation is the collection of information, and thus it is unreasonable to expect those agencies to strictly limit a core function of their own accord.

Third, bureaucratic institutions are never fully insulated from partisan pressures or interference. Politics will always play some role in how a government institution is run and what protections it receives from the elected branches of government. This doesn't mean that every new president or attorney general will target specific groups or shield others, but political appointments and publicly stated enforcement priorities will invariably influence who ultimately faces investigatory scrutiny.

Thorough internal reporting, continual congressional oversight, and public legal challenges to asserted government authority are essential to reining in potential due process abuses in any federal enforcement agency. Current practices provide ample reason to be on alert for future abuses.

Last year, Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Eddington wrote in the Orange County Register that the FBI had opened up an "assessment" of the Concerned Women for America (CWA), a conservative non-profit advocacy organization. An assessment is a type of FBI investigation, created by U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008, that requires no direct evidence of criminal activity to begin. According to internal documents Eddington obtained, the Obama-era FBI opened the assessment on CWA in 2016 after the organization received a two-star rating from Charity Navigator, a nonprofit watchdog that rates organizations' use of funds on a five-star scale.

The agency was ostensibly investigatingthe "possibility of fraudulent activity," but, put simply, assessments are a way for the FBI to go looking for crimes they have no legally justifiable reason to suspect. This is a blatant violation of basic principles of due process, yet a 2011 New York Times report showed the FBI initiated more than 80,000 assessments in a two-year period, most of which amounted to nothing as did the CWA assessment.

But just because the government ultimatelydrops a groundless investigation does not mean no harm has been done by their snooping. News of federal investigations can be ruinous to personal reputations, even if the targets are ultimately exonerated. Moreover, if criminal investigations become commonplace against political actors, they can have a chilling effect that dissuades Americans from exercising our constitutional rights.

Crucially, all of the above instances happened without a dedicated domestic terror unit at DOJ. Adding a new unit will increase the likelihood of similar abuses.

The creation of any law enforcement entity with an open-ended mission invariably provides incentive to fulfill that mission, whether or not it is the best use of resources at any given time. Just as gang, drug, and gun task forces in local police departments can always find something to do, the potential for domestic terrorism will never fully go away. So even if the risk of domestic terror declines, any lawyer in that unit will havea built-in incentive to find new terrorists. So long as the DOJ and FBI have the investigative authority to look at political groups for no particular reason, the risk for abuse is so great it can be treated as inevitable.

Ethnic and political violence cannot be tolerated in a free society, and the government has an obligation to protect Americans from such intimidation. However, the government must not violate our political rights in the name of their protection.And while it is too early to pass judgment on the initial actions of the new domestic terrorism unit, history and experience teach us to be wary of its power going forward, no matter how well-intended it is or which political party is controlling the office.

Read the rest here:
The dangerous incentive in a new domestic terror unit - The Week Magazine

A 40-year-old from Buenos Aires City was the lucky winner of the raffle for libertarian deputy Javier Mileis first monthly paycheque this week and while the lawmaker was happy to follow through on his campaign promise, he probably isnt as pleased with the result.

The winner reportedly registered at the last minute on Tuesday night, competing with almost one million participants competing for the sum of 205,596 pesos (around US$1,000).

"The winner is called Federico Hugo Nacarado, 40, who registered last night at 9.10pm," Milei confirmed on Wednesday.

However, the ideology of porteo Nacarado is far removed from the liberal economist since he considers himself to be a fanatical Kirchnerite.

"I love Cristina[Fernndez deKirchner]," maintainsNacarado, who works in the construction sector. He said his wife entered him into the raffle "because you have to if there is a contest going.

Mileis parliamentary salary will be raffled the same way every month, Libertad Avanza sources informed, open via https://mipalabra.javiermilei.com to all Argentine-born citizens aged over 18.

How are you doing, Javier? Thanks a lot, the money will come in handy, Nacarado told the deputy in a brief dialogue maintained via Todo Noticias television news channel, telling him that much of it will go to pay off bank overdrafts.

"At least he made a good start because he kept a promise, he commented on Milei and his recent incursion into politics.

"At home we are super K, the winner later told La Nacin, naming his three favourite Argentine politicians as first, Cristina Kirchner, then (Buenos Aires Province Governor) Axel Kicillof and third,Mximo Kirchner."

As for the ultra-liberal and anti-system economist Milei, 51, his comment was: "That money is mine, I can spend it like any other deputy or burn it in public or seek a form whereby that money stolen from the people returns to the people."

Just 25 years after swearing in on December 10, the deputy raffled his December salary of 200,000 pesos in a street overlooking a Mar del Plata beach at the height of the holiday season, transmitted directly by television news channels. The name of the winner emerged ahead of the presence of Milei himself.

The libertarian sprang from the academic world and political consultancy when he created his La Libertad Avanza party in 2020 which rubbishes what he calls the "political caste" and considers the state "the enemy, a violent oppressor who robs us of the fruit of our labours," in his words.

In the November 14 midterms, Mileis party finished third in the City of Buenos Aires with 17.3 percent of the vote, winning two seats in the Chamber of Deputies although not represented in the rest of the country.

The initiative was criticised by many of his fellow-deputies while the Agencia de Acceso a la Informacin Pblica, an autonomous government entity, began an investigation to corroborate that it complies with personal data protection legislation, given the possibility that the real aim of the raffle was to assemble a data base of possible voters.

"What does Milei live from, how does he pay his bills?" asked deputy Sabrina Ajmechet, of the centre-right opposition Juntos por el Cambio coalition, warning that if legislators do not collect their salaries, "only the wealthy could enter politics."

"I pick up money for my work, as outlined by Article 74 of the Constitution," said his ally Jos Luis Espert, another ultra-liberal economist, differentiating himself from Milei, who argued that he renounced his earnings from private activity before swearing in as a deputy on December 10 and that he will live in future from economics lectures.

TIMES/AFP/PERFIL

View post:
Milei raffles off monthly pay and the cash is won by a Kirchnerite - Buenos Aires Times

WASHINGTON, DC Gov. Chris Sununu laid out some of the work he says the state needs to continue to do to be the best place to live and work in the nation in an interview at the Cato Institute Thursday.

The libertarian think tank in Washington ranked New Hampshire Number One among the states for fiscal, regulatory, and personal policy in 2021. But it has recommendations for improvement.

Entering his fifth year as the state's chief executive, after recently announcing he plans to run for a fourth term rather than for the U.S. Senate, Sununu, a Republican, said his agenda going forward is to work on existing issues like the COVID-19 pandemic, reduce overdose deaths, increase school choice, pass right-to-work legislation, agree to his version of paid family leave which is "not an income tax" and try to tackle the lack of available housing as the state grows in popularity and prosperity.

While COVID-19 "is still very much with us," and on his front burner, Sununu said he would resist government mandates over the choice of businesses and hospitals to decide whether mandatory vaccinations among employees and mask-wearing among visitors and patrons was necessary.

In much the way he said local control has been the hallmark of the state's success, he said individual choice over government mandates always work out better saying those approaches are eventually "doomed to fail."

He criticized teachers' unions in general saying they are "out for themselves."

"I try not to be a union basher," Sununu said but he called their approach a "failing model."

Sununu said he embraces school choice now and going forward particularly for low-income families who find that their public school is not working for them, and he noted the popular voucher approach the state has taken for that demographic.InDepthNH.org reached out to both the NEA-NH and the New Hampshire Democratic Party for a response to the interview that was livestreamed but did not immediately receive a response from NEA-NH.

NHDP Chair Ray Buckley said: "Instead of attacking New Hampshire teachers and pushing a costly school voucher program that will gut public education, Chris Sununu ought to be doing his job and working to fund public education for all students in New Hampshire."

"Chris Sununu and the NH GOP need to end their obsessive culture war on U.S. history that's hurting Granite State children, and let teachers teach," said Buckley.

Sununu traveled to Washington D.C. for the policy conversation with William Ruger, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, and Jason Sorens, an adjunct scholar there, and the director of the Center for Ethics in Society at Saint Anselm College.

The conversation was virtual and was watched by many with three questions taken at the end of the hour from the public in a chatbox.

Both Ruger and Sorens are authors of Freedom in the 50 States, its sixth edition which is an index of personal and economic freedom in America by states during 2021.

In 2020, Florida was ranked the number one state on the basis of how their policies promote freedom in the fiscal, regulatory and personal realms but in 2021, New Hampshire returned to the number one position with Florida second, Nevada third, Tennessee fourth, and South Dakota fifth.

The 50th or the worst-ranked state according to the Cato index was New York while neighboring states Massachusetts ranked 30th, Vermont 43rd, and Maine 43th.

Sununu said the top five states on the list produced by the report are where "people flock to."

The report indicates that due to the pro-freedom direction of New Hampshire and its legislative policies it is likely to be harder for other states to "regain the crown" next year.

New Hampshire's 400-member House of Representatives, considered by Sununu to be the most representative in the nation, flipped from Democratic to Republican control a year ago with more than 100 endorsed Freedom Caucus candidates being elected. They are all up for re-election this year.

Sununu called it an honor to be considered the number one state for freedom and said "who you elect matters."Sununu said he was fearful that the next generation is shying away from politics because it has become so divisive and personal but he urged those in states which don't have the freedoms that New Hampshire enjoys to run for office or get civically engaged as the best way to make a difference and see change.

"Stay positive," he said. "You need hope."He gave an example of success in that regard as the town of Walpole which built affordable housing which looks like a barn and in character with the community.

He said the state needs to engage the business community and entice and empower them to be part of the housing solution as a way to fight against the "NIMBY" or not in my backyard philosophy obstructing housing development.

He also pointed to his efforts to reduce taxes as part of the reason the state is doing so well noting that he reminds his father John, a former governor, that he was not able to do what he has done.

The report had some concerns for New Hampshire from its freedom-loving perspective.

It said New Hampshire's regulatory outlook is not so sunny and noted: "the granite state's primary sin is exclusionary zoning."

It recommended that the state needs to legalize gambling, pass a right-to-work law and that local governments need to get a handle on school spending and taxation.

Sununu was asked by a caller about legalizing marijuana and said the state has decriminalized it under his watch and he would be receptive to bills that would handle it in the right way, but he worried about the state's drug problems and does not want to exacerbate or diminish advances to turn that crisis around.

Sununu said the bottom line for freedom in New Hampshire is that local control means individuals have more of a say. That brings with it an inherent sense of freedom from government and the ability to engage at a micro level to come to a consensus and see meaningful change and feel that individual voices are heard, which is not a top-down government at all but by the people and for the people, he said.

A copy of the CATO report can be found here.https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

This story was originally published by InDepth NH.

Continue reading here:
Sununu Goes To Washington To Talk To Cato Institute About New Hampshire - Patch.com

The Texas Constitution

Fun facts about the document that guides the laws of the Lone Star State.

John C. Moritz/USA TODAY NETWORK

AUSTINPop quiz Question 1: What do Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky and Texas have in common when it comes to politics? Answer: All have gone Republican in every presidential election this century.

Question 2: Pull Texas out of the mix, and then what do they have in common? Answer: They are all currentlyrun by Democratic governors. That's something Texas has not been able claim in almost 28 years. In fact, Democratshaven't won any statewide elections in that long, and there have been about 100 of them during that time.

By way of illustration, an online site for lottery players puts the odds of someone matchingthree of the six numbers in a Lotto Texas drawing at about 1 in 75. The payout for hitting three of six is a modest $3. But it stillmeans a Texas Democrat has a better chance of winning at least part of the Lotto jackpot than getting elected statewide.

So why can Democrats win at least sometimes in red states but not in Texas? There's not a one-size-fits-all answer, but there are some clues. And, like the Lotto analogy, evidence suggests that a little luck is often involved.

Let's look at Kentucky. It's home to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, arguably the most powerful Republican currentlyholding elective office. And it's arguably even redder than Texas. Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 30 percentage points in 2016and crushed Joe Biden by 32 points four years later.

But between those blowouts, along came Democrat Andy Beshear. In 2019, one of the nation's few odd-year state elections, Beshear challenged Trump-backed Republican Gov. Matt Bevin. Beshear had come out for expanded Medicaid for economically distressed families and sided with public school teachers, whom Bevin had targeted as "selfish" and "ignorant."

More: MORITZ: 2022 is almost here, so now's time to start paying attention to midterm elections

Beshear, then the state attorney general, whose father had served as Kentucky governor, benefited from voters being turned off by Bevin's sometimes pugnacious behavior.He also ran into a bit of luck. Bevin's vote tally was just a hair'sbreadth below 50%, and pundits said the 2% pulled by the Libertarian candidate was enough to vanquish the Republican incumbent.

Louisiana elected Democrat John Bel Edwards governor in 2015, toward the end of Barack Obama's presidency. Recall that the Obama era midterm and off-year elections were brutal for Democrats, especially in the South. But Bel Edwards, who happensto share the same last name as Louisiana political legend Edwin Edwards (there goes that luck thing again), stuck to bread-and-butter issues as a way of not getting intertwined with his state's antipathy toward Obama.

Bel Edwards, who is not related to Edwin Edwards,was reelected in 2019. It didn't hurt that he is a gun rights advocate and anti-abortion in heavily Catholic Louisiana. And he campaigned heavily and turned outthe vote among Black Louisianans. The racewas close, but a win is a win. And the next year, Trump took Louisiana by a comfortable 60-40 ratio.

More: MORITZ: How unfamous people with famous names have fared in Texas politics over the years

Kansas is so Republican that no Democrat has carried the state in a presidential election since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. But in 2018, a good year for Democrats nationally, Laura Kelly pushed back against Trump's hard line on immigration and vowed to expand Medicaid. Kelly also aggressively courted Republican moderates who were uncomfortable with both Trump and former Gov. Sam Brownback.

So what does all this mean for Texas in 2022, not only in the governor's race but down the ballot as well? The easy, and perhaps flip, answer for Democrats is to pray for a long overdue change of luck. The harder, and so farunattainable, answer is tofind some way to make your own luck.

John C. Moritz covers Texas government and politics for the USA Today Network in Austin. Contact him at jmoritz@gannett.comand follow him on Twitter@JohnnieMo.

Read more here:
MORITZ: Democrats win in other red states, but in Texas, they're unable to crack the code - Corpus Christi Caller-Times