Mediaboss Marketing

September 08, 2022|Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it received previously sealed court documents, including depositions of IRS officials Lois Lerner, the former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Holly Paz, her top aide and former IRS director of Office of Rulings and Agreements, which show that they knew most Tea Party organizations were legally entitled to tax-exempt status in the run up to the Obama reelection in 2012.

The release comes in the December 2017 amicus curiae brief (friend of the court) filed by Judicial Watch in NorCal Tea Party Patriots, et al. v. The Internal Revenue Service, et al.(No. 1:13-cv-00341). Judicial Watch argued that the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct, and the shielding of internal government deliberations does not serve the publics interest.

Lerners and Pazs depositions were sealed by Judge Barrett in April 2017, after Lerners and Pazs lawyers claimed the two officials were receiving threats. The court finally ordered the unsealing of the depositions four years after plaintiffs requested the depositions be unsealed and only after plaintiffs filed for awrit of mandamusto force action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (In December 2017, Judicial Watch submitted anamicus curiae(friend of the court) brief in support of plaintiffs request that the depositions should be unsealed.)

The sworn depositions were given in 2017 by Lerner and Paz. In the newly unsealed deposition transcripts, the two IRS officials repeatedly have memory lapses and regularly plead ignorance of the fundamental matters in question.

The unsealed Lerner and Paz deposition transcripts reveal through sworn testimony the bureaucratic tangle created by the Obama IRS to single out, delay and deny the processing of conservative, especially Tea Party non-profit groups applications for tax-exempt status and to disclose their donors names. At the same time, Paz admits under questioning that she knew from the beginning there was not sufficient legal basis to deny most of the targeted groups tax exempt status:

Q: [T]he organizations had filed applications representing what they were organized for and what they have done and also their intended activities, and you thought that for the majority of those applications that that would warrant the recognition of exemption?

***

The Witness [Paz]: My recollection is that at the time, my thinking was that the majority of the (c)(4) applications, while they may have indicated some amount of political activity, that we would not have enough basis to make a determination that that would be their primary activity and deny them exempt status.

Q: And, therefore, they would receive an approval or recognition of exemption?

A: Correct.

The records also include an unsealed court filing by NorCal Tea Party Patriots that provides a detailed description of the ordinary process by which the IRS determines whether to grant an organization tax exempt status and how the process under Lerner deviated from that norm after the IRS brought Tea Party groups under special scrutiny following the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. (The Citizens United decision held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.)

The NorCal Tea Party Patriots filing details:

Lerner expressed strong feelings about the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United v. FECdecision. In a June 1, 2012, email exchange with [redacted], Lerner wrote that Citizens Unitedis by far the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. Later in the same email exchange, Lerner expanded on her views of Citizens United:

We are witnessing the end of America. There has always been the struggle between the capitalistic ideals and the humanistic ideals. Religion has usually tempered the selfishness of capitalism, but the rabid, hellfire piece of religion has hijacked the game and in the end, we will all lose out. Its all tied together money can buy the Congress and the Presidency, so in turn, money packs the SCt. and the court backs the moneythe old boys still win.

Lerner sought to reverse the impact of Citizens United. In a June 11, 2012, email exchange with Robert Stern [former chair of the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws] about Sterns report discussing states responses to Citizens United, Lerner wrote:

I like it! Very easy to find specific information, as well as get the big picture you done good! Now, if you can only fix the darn law!

***

In a February 13, 2012, email exchange among Lerner and various of her subordinates about [proposed] federal legislation that would require tax-exempt organizations to disclose their donors, Lerner wrote: Wouldnt that be great? And I wont hold my breath.

The NorCal Tea Party Patriots filing also describes Lerners targeting Tea Party groups after Citizens United:

Lerner began to worry that applicants for exemption would rely on Citizens United to challenge the IRSs regulations on political activities by (c)(3) and (c)(4) organizations.

Lerner particularly worried that Tea Party groups would seek to challenge IRS regulations. In an email exchange concerning the February 1, 2011, SCR [Sensitive Case Report], Lerner told Paz and others: Tea Party Matter very dangerousThis could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether Citizens United [sic] overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules. Counsel and Judy Kindell need to be in on this one please needs to be in this. Cincy should probably NOT have these casesHolly please see what exactly they have please.

Later in that exchange, Lerner directed her subordinates to find a reason other than political activity to deny the Tea Party applicants exemption under 501(c)(3) to prevent them from challenging the exemption rules based on Citizens United:

Thankseven if we go with a 4 on the Tea Party cases, they may want to argue they should be 3s, so it would be great if we can get there without saying the only reason they dont get a 3 is political activity.

These new transcripts expose new details and the cover-up of how the Obama IRS intentionally suppressed the Tea Party movement during the 2012 presidential campaign, said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. These documents show how the Obama administration easily used the IRS to suppress an entire political movement threatening his reelection. The Obama IRS abuse is the epitome of election interference. Given this largely unchecked abuse by the IRS, the Biden administrations massive new expansion of the IRS should concern all Americans.

Lois Lerner retired with full federal benefits in September 2013.

The original NorCal Tea Party Patriotslawsuitin which Lerner and Paz gave depositions was a class-action lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury and named individual officials claiming that:

Elements within the Executive Branch of the federal government, including Defendants, brought the vast powers, incomprehensible complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the policies or ideology of the Administration. In other words, these citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.

The lawsuit wassettledin 2017 when the Justice Department awarded the plaintiffs over $3.5 million for attorneys fees, costs and expenses, and incentive awards. In settling the case, the DOJ admitted the IRS abused its power and the criteria it used to screen applications for 501(c) status was inappropriate. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessionsstated:

The IRS use of these criteria as a basis for heightened scrutiny was wrong and should never have occurred. It is improper for the IRS to single out groups for different treatment based on their names or ideological positions. Any entitlement to tax exemption should be based on the activities of the organization and whether they fulfill requirements of the law, not the policy positions adopted by members or the name chosen to reflect those views.

Despite theseadmissions of wrongdoing, the Obama IRS scandal resulted inno criminal charges.

Judicial Watch uncovered troves of documents about the Obama IRS scandal (see, for example,hereandhere). Judicial Watch filed at least nine Freedom of Information Act lawsuits about the IRS scandal, and much of what is known about the scandal resulted from Judicial Watch litigation and investigations.

Here is a partial summary of Judicial Watch disclosures:

In September 2014, a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuitforced the release of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and maintained the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups.IRS officials acknowledged in these documents that such information was not needed.The documents also show that the donor names were being used for a secret research project.

In April 2015, Judicial Watch released court orderedIRS documents that includedan emailfrom Lerner asking that a program be set up to put together some training points to help them [IRS staffers] understand the potential pitfalls of revealing too much information to Congress. The documents also contain a Lerner email from 2013 in which she says she iswilling to take the blameon some aspects of the scandal. She also indicates that she understands why the IRS criteria leading to the targeting of Tea Party and other opponents of the President Obama might raise questions.

In July 2015,records showed the IRS scandal also included the Justice Department and FBI as well. According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch under court order, in an October 2010 meeting, Lerner, Justice Department officials and the FBI planned for the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political activity. As part of that effort, the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 non-profit, 501(c)(4) social welfare groups as part of its prosecution effort. According to aletterfrom then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, This revelation likely means that the IRS including possibly Lois Lerner violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department

Also inJuly 2015, Judicial Watch released Obama IRSdocumentsconfirming that the agency used donor lists of tax-exempt organizations to target those donors for audits. The documents also show IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under high scrutiny from the IRS.

In July 2016, Judicial Watch through a federalcourt orderin one of its FOIA lawsuits(Judicial Watch v Department of Justice(No. 1:14-cv-01239)) obtained FBI 302 documents, which contain detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations,revealing that top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew that the agency was specifically targeting Tea Party and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public.

The FBI 302 documents also confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013reportthat said, Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011. Lerner did notreveal the targetinguntil May 2013, in response to a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The documents reveal that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerners response, where she admits:

They [IRS staff] used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.

In November 2016, after the IRS refused to acknowledgeits targeting of conservative groups, Judicial Watch forced the release of IRS records revealing the agency used inappropriate political labels to screen the tax-exempt applications of conservative organizations. IRS agents were targeting organizations requesting tax-exempt status based on guilt by association and party affiliation. Judicial Watch brought to light that the IRS was going to require 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations torestrict their alleged political activities in exchange for expedited consideration of their tax-exempt applications. FBI 302 documents uncovered by Judicial Watch also reveal that IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups because of their ideology and political affiliation in the summer of 2011.

Judicial Watch also separately uncovered in its lawsuit Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service(No. 1:13-cv-01559) that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama Justice Department and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. Indiscussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to prosecute these political groups, Lerner admitted, it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.

In March 2017, Judicial Watch obtained IRSdocumentsthrough its FOIA lawsuit Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service(No. 1:15-cv-00220) that contain admissions by IRS officials that the agency used inappropriate political labels to screen the tax-exempt applications of conservative organizations. Other records uncovered reveal that the IRS was going to require 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations to restrict their alleged political activities in exchange for expedited consideration of their tax-exempt applications.

In June 2018, Judicial Watch obtainedinternal IRSdocuments through one of its FOIA lawsuits (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service(No. 1:13-cv-01559)) revealing that Sen. John McCains former staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged top IRS officials, including then-director of exempt organizations Lois Lerner, to audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous. Kerner was appointedby President Trump as Special Counsel for the United States Office of Special Counsel.

In response to Judicial Watchs litigation, the IRS initially claimed that emails belonging to Lerner were supposedly missing. Later, IRS officials conceded that the missing emails were on IRS back-up systems.

###

See the rest here:
Judicial Watch: Unsealed Depositions of Former Obama IRS Officials Lerner and Paz Detail Knowledge of Tea Party Targeting - Judicial Watch

The importance of factions.Ever since the victory of the Republican Party in 1860, American politics has been dominated by two political parties Republicans and Democrats. And yet this apparent stability masks the fact that American parties have changed enormously over the years as one or the other political party morphs into something else. For instance, the Democratic Party was the party of segregation and Jim Crow after the Civil War and today it is the party of civil rights. The party of Lincoln has now become the party of Trump.

Factions surface in contests for the partys nominations at all levels of government. Today we see can see factions emerge as primaries unfold and we can gauge their strength by looking at the kinds of candidates who run in primaries and how they perform. Because primaries have traditionally been low turnout events, competing in them is cheaper than contesting a general election. It is no surprise therefore, that primaries especially congressional primaries have become the pre-eminent vehicle for activists seeking to affect their partys meaning.

Factional politics prior to 2022.[1] In the three congressional primary studies conducted prior to 2022, we coded each congressional candidate according to their position within their party. In 2014 we saw the beginning of the Republican Partys significant turn to the right as the Tea Party candidates challenged more traditional business minded Republicans. In 2016, the presidential primaries unearthed extensive divisions within each political party. The Democrats saw a resurgence of the left wing of their party under Senator Bernie Sanders and many pundits began to identify it as the Sanders/Warren wing of the partyreferring to Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. On the Republican side, Donald Trump managed to surprise the establishment and win the presidential nomination. The drama in the congressional primaries, however, was not as intense as it was in the presidential primaries.

By 2018 the intra-party factional divides had intensified as mainstream candidates were challenged on the left and on the right. The number of self-identified progressives increased dramatically in 2018, no doubt the result of Bernie Sanders desire to keep his revolution going and his strong showing in the Democratic primary two years prior.[2] On the Republican side, the number of business/establishment candidates remained the same; the number of Tea Partycandidates dropped but the plurality of candidates identified themselves as conservatives.[3] Thus by 2018 the two parties reflected what has come to be known as asymmetric polarization. Among Democrats the establishment and the left were fairly evenly matched but among Republicans there were substantially more conservatives than more traditional business Republicans running in primaries. Nonetheless, the establishment candidates continued to have better win rates than the more extreme candidates in both parties. This finding held even when incumbents were removed (since incumbents have many advantages in primaries besides ideology).

Factions in the 2022 congressional primaries. In 2022 Donald Trumps influence in the Republican primaries was even more evident than Bernie Sanders influence was in the 2018 primaries. In both instances, a defeated presidential candidate sought to keep the movement alive by encouraging like-minded candidates to run in congressional primaries. Conventional wisdom at the end of the 2022 primary season holds that Donald Trump had taken over the Republican Party.

To test Trumps impact we coded Republican primary candidates into four categories. The first one is composed of candidates who were explicitly endorsed by Trump. (Note, we did not include 2020 endorsements if there were no 2022 endorsements an important choice given the former presidents penchant for changing his opinion of individuals over even short periods of political time.) The second category included candidates whose website contained an explicit photo and/or a favorable mention of Trump; these were often constructed to give the viewer the idea that Trump had endorsed the candidate when he had not. The third category included candidates whose website contained favorable photos and/or mentions of Make America Great Again, MAGA and/or America First. Candidates in the second and third categories were often Trump wannabees lacking an explicit endorsement but trying to capture support of Trump voters. In some races such as the marquee Senate races in Ohio and Pennsylvania, we saw that candidates attacked each other for not being loyal enough to Trump or they tried to paint themselves as the best example of Trumpism, even when they did not get the formal endorsement. The following table shows the breakdown of Republican candidates:

Table 1.2022 Republican primary candidates by their attachment to Trump*

*Numbers dont add to 100% since candidates can fall into more than one category. For instance, a Trump endorsed candidate will also have photos or favorable mentions of Trump and photos and/or favorable mentions of MAGA/America First.

**Most of Trumps endorsements were of incumbent members of Congress. As noted incumbentsusually win their primaries.Nonetheless of those races without an incumbent Trumps win rate isstill relatively high at 86.21%

The story from Table 1 is pretty clear Trump dominated the Republican Partys congressional primaries his endorsed candidates almost always won their races. Many of the candidates he did not endorse tried to get some of the Trump magic into their campaigns by featuring Trump and/or MAGA/America First on their website. They did less well than the candidates Trump actually endorsed. Interestingly, nearly 60% of the Republican primary candidates did not mention Trump, MAGA, or America First on their websites at all. Nonetheless, Trump, master of branding, proved the value of his brand in the Republican primaries.

On the Democratic side, the story is very different. Senator Bernie Sanders, famous for saying we need a revolution, was a far weaker factional leader in 2022 than Donald Trump. As Table 2 indicates, Sanders and his allies and organizations on the far left endorsed very few congressional candidates. Only half of those won their primaries. We also coded for favorable mentions of specific phrases that have become popular on the left wing of the Democratic Party. Slightly more than a quarter of all Democratic candidates used one of those phrases on their campaign website and about 40% of those candidates won. But perhaps the most important lesson from the 2022 Democratic primaries was that nearly three quarters of all the Democratic candidates stayed away from the far left wing of the Democratic Party in marked contrast to the Republicans who were trying like heck to wrap themselves in the Trump flag.

Table 2. 2022 Democratic Congressional candidates by their left wing sympathies

46.98%

In addition to looking at the impact of factional leaders on the primaries we also coded each candidate for where they stood within the party. Here we relied primarily on the candidates own self-identification. As Table 3 illustrates, the 2022 Republican primaries reflect the move to the right that began in 2014 with the Tea Party candidates and that accelerated with the triumph of Trump over his party.

Table 3. Factional self-identification of Republican primary candidates in 2022

The leftward movement on the Democratic side is far less dramatic than the movement to the right on the Republican side, a trend our colleagues Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein have been writing about for much of the 21st century. As Table 4 illustrates, there are still a large number of Mainstream Democrats running in the Democratic primaries, and they do fairly well. In addition, there are a large number of candidates who call themselves progressives and they too do fairly well. In a finding sure to make Republican ad makers unhappy, there are very few Democratic Socialists running in Democratic primaries and they lose more than half their races. Of the 13 candidates using that label only five won, and all of those races were in very Democratic districts where the Cook Political Report rates them above D+20. The revolution appears to be losing steam.

Table 4. Factional self-identification of Democratic Congressional candidates in 2022 primaries

Conclusion. In the past decade each major political party has found itself embroiled in factional wars. But the impact on the parties has been very different. On the Republican side candidates have embraced Trump even when he has not embraced them and done very well in the primaries because of it. On the Democratic side, the impact of Bernie Sanders revolution has been smaller, more muted, and less successful in primaries. These facts are often overlooked for two reasons. First, the Republican Party works hard to paint all Democrats as socialists who would wreck our economy, defund the police, and open our borders to everyone. Second is the inclination in the press towards what our colleague and distinguished journalist Marvin Kalb has called the journalistic curse called bothsideism.[4] The way this has worked in recent years is to assume symmetry if the Republican Party is being jerked to the far right; the Democratic Party must be being jerked to the far left. As weve seen, theres not much evidence to support that trend among the Democrats but plenty of evidence to support it among the Republicans.

Some years ago, political scientists Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann popularized the notion of asymmetric polarization and argued that it was worse among elites such as lawmakers on the Republican side than it was among lawmakers on the Democratic side.[5] The ongoing work in the Primaries Project offers evidence that polarization is worse on the Republican side than on the Democratic side, and that moving far right is received more enthusiastically among Republican voters than moving far left is among Democratic voters.

The question this poses for the elections of 2022 and beyond is whether the Republican Partys enthusiastic embrace of Trumpism will, at some point, go so far as to backfire and create a large and sustainable Democratic majority. Early indications are that abortion politics may be the cutting edge of this kind of overreach.

Footnotes:

[1] For research from prior years go to: https://www.brookings.edu/project/the-primaries-project/ (Back to top)

[2] https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-2018-primaries-project-what-are-the-internal-divisions-within-each-party/ (Back to top)

[3] Ibid(Back to top)

[4] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/07/21/press-bothsideism-has-failed-biden-and-america/ (Back to top)

[5] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-polarization-is-asymmetric-and-conservatives-are-worse/373044/ (Back to top)

Visit link:
Lessons from the 2022 Primaries what do they tell us about Americas political parties and the midterm elections? - Brookings Institution

People climbing Mount Fuji are served matcha tea in a special tea room after changing into kimonos, in this photo provided by Yuki Hatakeyama. On the right is Soyu Mori's apprentice.

A tea ceremony was held near the summit of Mount Fuji on Sept. 7, in a special tea room set up at the eighth station of the Yoshida trail, before the summer mountain climbing season ends on Sept. 10.

Though such tea ceremonies have been held in the past at Sengen shrine's inner shrine at the summit of Mount Fuji, it was the first time the event had been held in a portable tea room at the Eboshiiwa shrine on the Yamanashi Prefecture side of Japan's highest peak.

The cubic tea room measures 1.8 meters long on each side, and was made by weaving twisted yarn using traditional Gunnai textile techniques from the prefectural city of Fujiyoshida, and placing it over a stainless-steel frame.

Soyu Mori, a 45-year-old master of the Urasenke tea school, used an electric heater to boil snowmelt water that had seeped out from between rocks, and poured the tea into traditional Nara Prefecture Akahada ware, serving it in an elegant manner.

About 50 climbers attended despite the occasional rain. A 47-year-old woman from Tokyo who runs a restaurant said, "I thought it would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, so I rushed here. The space was more beautiful than I had imagined, and I was surprised by the authenticity of the tea ceremony." A 22-year-old male university student from France commented with a smile, "The tea ceremony seemed difficult, but it was my first experience and I had a lot of fun."

Architect Shinichiro Hashiguchi, 49, who designed the tea ceremony room and planned the event, said, "I thought of holding a tea party to express my gratitude for the blessing of Mount Fuji. I was able to hear stories from people involved in Gunnai textiles, and I learned a lot. I would like to continue (holding such events)."

(Japanese original by Tatsuo Nanai, Contributing Writer)

See the article here:
50 climbers attend Japanese tea ceremony in portable tea room on Mt. Fuji - The Mainichi - The Mainichi

By Frank Miele Real Clear Wirehttps://www.realclearwire.com/

As I hinted would happen in a previous column, Alaskas experiment in ranked choice voting had its intended result the defeat of conservative hero Sarah Palin and the election of the first Democratic member of Congress from the state in more than 50 years.

No wonder Republicans are excited to see the same revolutionary system installed across the nation.

Huh? Wait, that doesnt make any sense. Why would Republicans want to see a Democrat elected?

Good question, and one best answered with another question: Why do you think they are called Republicans in Name Only?

Two such Republicans in Montana penned an op-ed last week that was published in newspapers across the state. Former Gov. Marc Racicot and former Secretary of State Bob Brown touted non-partisan elections (with or without ranked choice) as the path to free and open primary elections, ignoring the fact that primaries cannot achieve their purpose of selecting champions who will represent party ideals if they are open.

In most scenarios, the kind of open primary envisioned by Racicot and Brown is paired with a ranked-choice general election where the top primary candidates (usually four) compete against each other. If none surpasses 50% on the first ballot, then the votes of the last-place candidate are discarded and his voters second choices are tallied instead. This process continues until one of the candidates achieves a true majority of first-, second- and third-choice votes. Although its sold as a method to weed out extremists, it seems more likely to have the practical effect of ensuring mediocrity. Call it the Peter Principle of politics.

As with most dangerous ideas, it pays to follow the money to see where it originated. Although ranked choice voting is generally sold as a bipartisan, or even nonpartisan, idea whose time has come, the money says something different. The Capital Research Center concluded that most of the money behind advocacy of ranked choice voting comes from the left. So if you trust left-wing groups to reshape democracy, youre good to go. If not, then take a close look before you buy the pig in a poke.

What RINOs and Democrats actually want to accomplish with open primaries and ranked choice voting is the suppression of populist outsider candidates and the validation of an establishment ruling class who makes decisions for the rest of us. To sell this power consolidation to everyday voters, proponents of ranked choice voting use the political tool promoted by Machiavelli and perfected by 21st century Democrats fear.

Fear of so-called extremists. Fear of Sarah Palin. Fear of the Tea Party. Fear of parents who want to protect their children from Marxist ideology and gender-bending educators. Fear of The Former Guy. Fear of what Joe Biden calls Ultra MAGA Republicans. You saw that fear exemplified in Bidens blood-red speech to the nation in which he called Americans who literally want to make America great again the biggest threat to democracy.

And these people who push fear and division say they have the perfect way to protect democracy by disenfranchising those who pose the greatest risk to the powers that be, namely those who are dissatisfied with politics as usual and want to shake up the system.

Interestingly, the ruling elite has in essence co-opted this passion for change and turned it on its head. While Biden seems content to crush the opposition with brute force, a much more subtle battle for the soul of America is being waged by intellectuals such as Brown and establishmentarians like Racicot. Appealing to the American instinct for novelty, they have proposed the radical idea of re-inventing democracy, or rather manipulating it so that they can greatly diminish the chance of an iconoclast like Donald Trump ever being elected.

And although its called by the benign name of ranked choice voting, it has the rank odor of Third World authoritarianism. The first step is to convince the people that political parties are a danger to the state. Instead of the Republican Party being an expression of the will of the people who belong to it, the new Machiavellis paint it as a troublesome aberration that must be neutralized.

Then, after poisoning the well, these would-be dictators magnanimously give voters the chance to choose between the malignant Republicans or the level-headed Democrats in the open primary, where all candidates compete against each other regardless of party affiliation. This is sold as an amplification of the peoples right to choose any candidate, but dont be deceived. You already have the right to choose any candidate in the general election; the primary is intended to give voters an opportunity to choose a champion for their cause.

Depending on the individual states rules, the so-called jungle primary will elevate two, three, or four candidates to the general election ballot. Heres where the scheme first invites manipulation and deception. Lets say one party has a number of attractive candidates in a district, and the opposing party has a less well-known candidate running for the same office. Under such a scenario, one party could wind up with all the candidates on the general election ballot. Thats fine if its your party, but if its not, then you have been deprived of your opportunity to see your issues addressed by a candidate in the election that counts the one that puts someone in office.

Racicot and Brown turn this on its head, suggesting that we all benefit by having fewer candidates, and thus fewer ideas, to consider. They write:

In Montana, and in many other states, voters in primary elections are not free to vote for candidates of their choice. The purpose of primary elections in Montana and other states is for the two major political parties to select their most formidable partisans, who will then face off in the general election in the fall. In the primary election, voters are forced to make a choice to vote either a straight Republican or Democratic ticket. Thats a choice, but its clearly not truly a freedom of choice.

So the authors actually admit that ranked choice voting subverts the very purpose of primary elections. They then go on to acknowledge that under their proposal, Candidates narrowly focusing on ultra partisan true believers would likely be dislodged from the position of dominance they enjoy with closed primary elections.

Sadly, Montana already has open primaries in the sense that any registered voter can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary, but not both. That has led to massive mischief in many elections as the minority-party Democrats who have little of interest in their own primaries in red Montana cross over and vote in the Republican primary to try to either elect or defeat candidates whom they consider unworthy.

By eliminating partisan primaries altogether, Racicot and Brown argue that they would increase the chances of issue and solution-oriented candidates to move on from the primary to the general election. Of course, that just means the candidates will be interested in solving problems the way that Racicot and Brown want them solved. Id like to see solutions to the open border, unconstitutional lockdowns, a corrupt justice system, rising crime, runaway spending, and educational decline, but most of all Id like to see Republicans stop compromising their principles in order to get something done. Unfortunately, ranked choice voting in Montana would just mean more Republicans with fewer principles.

Racicot and Brown may truly believe, as they wrote in a prior op-ed, that their re-invention will return political authority to the people, but that is a fantasy. Again, in their latest essay, they claim that There can be no real government of, by and for the people unless the people are free to make their own choices, unconstrained by the narrowly defined choices made for them by the major political parties.

But without political parties, the people have no voice whatsoever. To imagine a return to some kind of Athenian democracy is the height of folly when technology, money and incumbency combine to ensure that only the best-organized opposition has any chance to break through and disrupt entrenched power.

And thats before we even get to the ranked part of the vote, which comes when those final four candidates face off against each other. Because of the complicated nature of the tally, the election results must be determined by computers, not by humans. I dont have to tell anyone that in the current climate of distrust and fear, that cant possibly improve anyones confidence in the accuracy of the results. But beyond that, there is an underlying opportunity for those with unlimited resources to manipulate the system by running phantom candidates who will drain votes from their opponents as well as inviting lesser known or just less popular candidates to seize the role of spoiler.

Something like that happened in the Alaska election, where we witnessed both a ranked choice vote in a special election to fill the seat of the late Rep. Don Young at the same time that a primary was being held for the next full term of the same position.

In the special election, the first ever held under the new system passed by a Republican legislature and governor, the Democrat won because two Republicans were on the ballot representing irreconcilable viewpoints within the party. Palin is an outsider who wants to throw a monkey wrench into politics as usual, just as she did in her 2008 vice presidential run. Nick Begich III, on the other hand, is a third-generation member of a political dynasty that defines politics as usual.

Begichs grandfather, Nick Begich Sr. was the last Democrat to serve as Alaskas lone member of Congress. His death in an airplane crash in 1972 resulted in the beginning of Republican Rep. Don Youngs 50-year tenure in Congress, and though Nick III is running as a Republican, his family is strongly identified with Democrats, not just because of his grandfather, but also because his uncle, Mark Begich, served in the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from 2009 to 2015. That doesnt mean Nick III is himself a Democrat, but it probably means he is more comfortable reaching across the aisle to do deals with Democrats than helping Palin get to Washington, D.C., to drain the swamp.

In fact, Begich had his chance to do the right thing for his avowed political party by taking his name off the ballot in the Nov. 8 general election, thus virtually ensuring the victory of Palin against her Democrat opponent, Mary Peltola. But Begich let that opportunity pass, lured by polls that show him eventually winning under ranked choice voting as long as he can surpass Palin for second place.

Thats because Palins voters are loyal Republicans and would be expected to put down the other Republican (Begich) as their second choice, whereas Begichs voters are closet Democrats who would just as soon have liberal Peltola in office than have a disrupter like Palin shatter political norms.

So now, instead of just campaigning for votes in the general election and sailing to victory against Peltola and perhaps a third-party candidate, Palin has to divert her attention to strategies that convince Republicans they are being played by Democrats in a long con intended to diminish their power and dilute their vote.

On second thought, maybe this is politics as usual.

Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His new book, What Matters Most: God, Country, Family and Friends, is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA or on Twitter or Gettr @HeartlandDiary.

Follow this link:
Ranked choice voting leaves behind rank odor - The Highland County Press

And just like clockwork, Nicki Minaj stans are stirring the pot for Megan Thee Stallion following her recent collaboration with Lil Kim.

Source: Justin Sammer / Getty

Nicki Minaj hosted a new episode of her Queen Radio show on Amazons Amp titled Tea Party on Sunday, September 11. Just as the title suggests, the episode featured Minaj spilling tea about her rap rivals, one of which fans are sure is Megan Thee Stallion.

During her live stream, Nicki claimed one rapperwho she never actually namedsuggested she terminate her pregnancy at the abortion clinic after declining their offer for an alcoholic drink.

Imagine telling someone you didnt want a drink you know, because you were, at the time, possibly pregnant, because you were actively trying to have a baby, Minaj explained. Imagine that person saying, Oh girl, you can go to the clinic!

She added: Imagine posting photos that youre pregnant and the person doesnt even like it or say congratulations. But then, when you post thatBeyoncesent you flowers congratulating you, the person then tries to attempt to send you flowers thinking that, Oh, I could use this opportunity as I use everyone else. Shell post that I sent her flowers.

I didnt even let them shits in my muthaf**king house, said Nicki.

Again, Nicki Minaj didnt call anyone out by name, but the Barbzpossibly because of the Beyonc connectionimmediately pointed the finger at Megan Thee Stallion. Thats when one of her fans tagged Meg directly about the situation, tweeting, @theestallion Nicki Minaj is accusing you of encouraging abortion & child endangerment w/ alcohol.. This isnt something to stay quiet on.

But Meg was quick to set the record straight, shutting down the speculation by promptly replying: LIE.

A back-and-forth between Megan and some of Nickis fans went on for a while, with the WAP rapper shutting down claims that she was incriminating herself by responding even though Minaj didnt mention any names.

No names were mentioned but u were first to respond? Oh baby the shoe fits, another fan wrote, to which Megan replied: So this person didnt mention me?

Thee Stallion continued, If someone @ you you can respond right or that dont apply for every user on twitter? If someone directly @ my name why do they be confused when I reply lol?

Clearing things up for another fan, she wrote: This person as in the person who pressed the @ button yall not this crazy lol.

Nicki Minaj welcomed her first child, a son she calls Papa Bear, with her husband, Kenneth Petty in September 2020.

As for her relationship with Megan Thee Stallion, things seemingly fizzled out after Minaj was featured on her 2019 single Hot Girl Summer. Fans think Megans WAP collaboration with Cardi B, Nickis mortal nemesis, is the reason, but nothing has been confirmed from either side.

Nicki Minjas latest radio show that featured the abortion encouraging claims happened amid buzz from Nickis all-female Super Freaky Girl [Queenmix].

As previously reported the song features Katie Got Bandz, Akbar V, Maliibu Miitch, JT, and BIA and fans thought that a plethora of female rappers responded shadily to being left off the mix.

In particular, Barbz thought that Asian Doll, Coi Leray, and Lekeyah were upset that they werent includedbut when TheShadeRoom hinted that Nicki responded to the ladies, she cleared the air and said she wasnt talking to anyone in particular.

Why yall tryna make it look like Im responding to this CLOWN S### when all of my tweets were posted before these girls tweets?????????? ??????? wrote Nicki. Knock it TF OFF. WHEN I TELL U IDGAF Bwahahahahahahagaga.

She also praised the ladies actually featured on the track while slamming jealous ahh clowns.

Shout out the girls on the #QueenMix they congratulated me on going #1 so I asked them to be on my REMIX!!!!!! Who gon check me boo????!! Btchs aint got enough CASH IN THE BANK FOR DAT, she wrote in TSRs comments section.

Yall cant never be happy for other girls but Im the bitter one????? Bwajahahahahahagaga. Stay MAD. C@ck SUCKA OF THE DAY AWARDS IS BEING GIVEN OUT ON QUEEN RADIO TONIGHT. ENTITLED CRYING AHh JEALOUS Ahh Clowns.

Chiiiiiii yall erasing my comments now I gotta write the whole thing again?? Oh ok. Take it up with the white man. Yall want the black woman to promote yall for free while the white man make all the money. EAT a DIHHHHHHH.

If I pushed you out my tight vagina like this comment so I know, she added.

On Monday Nicki continued to rant, this time about entitled duds.

What jealous ahh clowns/duds do YOU think Nickis talking to?

At one point during her Tea Party Nicki was more direct and she shaded Real Housewife of Beverly Hills/former The Real co-host Garcelle Beauvais.

Nicki mocked Beauvais whose been in recent headlines because cyberbullies targeted her teenage son with racist messages.

According to LoveBScott, Nicki shaded the host who interviewed Kenneth Pettys rape accuser during her time at The Real, and brought up Garcelles divorce while labeling her a b***.

Get the f**k out of kitchen mother f***ing b***h! said Nicki. Did you care about my mother f***ing son b***h?!

I see why that white man left you b***h, disgusting! she added referencing Beauvais 2011 split from Mike Dilon.

Yiiiikes!

Nicki Minaj later shaded another former The Real co-host, Loni Love.

Nickis tweet prompted laughing emojis from Loves former The Real coworkerTamar Braxton.

What do YOU think about Nicki Minajs Tea Party comments?

Garcelle seems unbothered.

Read this article:
The Girls Are Fighting! Megan Thee Stallion Responds To The Barbz Believing She Told Nicki Minaj To Get An Abortion - Bossip