This Vice News Documentary on Racism Looks Chilling

And it’s time for media to put the same spotlight on all forms of hate.

HBO’s Vice News program will begin airing a documentary tonight (8/16) that promises to take an unflinching look at the white supremacist terror movement. The program will include interviews with white supremacists and footage recorded during the explosive and fateful events of the previous several days in Charlottesville, Va.

HBO has put an extended preview of tonight’s episode on YouTube.  I urge you to watch it, but be warned that it is shocking material that could be considered NSFW and unsuitable for younger children.

This is important and timely journalism from HBO.  It’s very likely that a large number of Americans are unaware that the views espoused by the subject of this piece are anything more than throwaway dialogue for historical fiction.  Those who say that the best way to banish these idea is to apply the Voldemort defense — “don’t speak their name because it gives them more power” — are wrong.  More light.  More shame.  More perspective on how small they are compared to the largeness of those who disagree with them.

Vice should also assign a team to compile a similar unvarnished, unfiltered perspective of groups that the left is now holding up as heroes who are in fact not heroes at all.

A primary role of the press in a free society is to raise an alarm when threat to the greater society surface.  The mainstream national media is doing an excellent job running the siren about the boldness of white supremacists and neo-Nazis. They are, so far, doing a fairly awful job when it comes to sounding the alarm about any hate rising in the left.

In fact, the same righteous charge leveled by nearly every mouth talking on CNN Tuesday at Pres. Donald Trump, that his remarks to the press on that day drew inaccurate and immoral equivalencies between white supremacists and antifa thugs that were warring on the ground in Charlottesville, could also apply to their chorus of outrage.  The president’s equivalency wasn’t just immoral, they cried, it was invalid and false to its core because white supremacists are stand for hate, and antifa is about standing up to hate.  Compounding their flawed logic was a wave of social media posts welcoming antifa into the club of heroes that includes U.S. soldiers who fought and died to defeat fascism in World War II.

(Local coverage in cities like Seattle, Portland, and even Berkeley, where the have been face-to-face with left-wing anarchists and antifa thugs tends to be much less afraid to call a spade a spade, or a nail-studded two-by-four a weapon, as is often the case. Direct experience is a potent ingredient in producing honest journalism.)

The problem is that if we’re going to be a society that really does seek to guard itself against hate, it won’t work for the media to be so exclusionary about what it will allow to be labeled hateful.

Whether hatred coalesces like an oily choking smoke cloud around race-based hate or class-based hate, white supremacy or Marxism, really matters less than the hard truth that each of these hate groups targets for demolition the same common set of core values: freedom, equality and tolerance of different opinions.  These hate groups descend from lines of virulent thought that have stacked up staggering body counts.  The fact that they and other opposing groups on the extreme wings are at war with each other shouldn’t trick us, and especially the wise sages in the media, into being stuck with only one white hat and one black hat to use in talking about them.

For Extremism to Fall, Civility Must Rise

It’s time to revoke the moratorium that intellectuals and political thinkers have imposed on a certain mode of argument. From here on out, we should talk openly about the dangers that extreme political groups pose to democratic societies, even if that means we need to talk about (gulp) the lessons that include the history of Nazi Germany.

I want to say at the outset that, although this should be obvious, the United States is not now Nazi Germany. Despite all attempts by the left to portray the U.S. as a teeming majority racist country, there is no evidence that is true, even with the surge in growth among hate groups in recent years. Similarly, conspiracists on the right who project Nazi-esque totalitarian motives onto liberals and Democrats are unhinged and misguided.

Nor does it seem likely that even in the unlikely event that America descends into extremism it would ever feature horrors on the magnitude inflicted by the 20th century’s ethno-fascist powers; our demographic diversity is a bulwark and a deterrent.

Nevertheless, is should be clear that something is not right in the U.S. body politic. It’s time for a sobering check and to consider the true condition of our political health, even if doing so requires denying ourselves to daydream about what we wish it to be.

Not only because of Charlottesville do we need this examination, but also because of Oak Creek, and Dallas, and Baltimore, and so many other recent moments in which hate boiled over and erupted into uncivil violent rage. Charlottesville was a focal point of white supremacist hate; there will be others. Now is the time to condemn that particular brand of evil, but we can do more than one thing at once. We are, after all, Americans. We fought fascism in two hemispheres; we can identify and defeat it on two poles of the political continuum here at home, too. We only need to be brave enough to face it directly. It’s time to face the reality that the dark forces are conducting their war on the fringes but through the middle of the political landscape. There are real potential concerns if the middle doesn’t take steps to confine corrosive insanity to the edges.

The real danger posed by these extreme groups is not their direct impact—their raw influence is overstated, partly due to tactical shrewdness on their part and partly due to media amplification. Under normal circumstances, the clear majority of people intuitively recognize extremists for who they are and insert proper distance from them and their views. But today’s circumstances are far from normal. The real danger posed by extreme groups is different today than in the past 20 years because it manifests at a time when extremists warring in the streets occurs against the backdrop of hyper-polarized politics in the middle (relatively speaking) of the spectrum.

Political machines making maps to nowhere

There are entire machines inside of mainstream politics working to ensure that people see Democrats or Republicans as sympathetic to one extreme or the other. They are good at what they do.

The political maps generated by millions of social media posts, emails, and other forms of messaging is, to be fair, useful—the groups on the fringes are bad folks—but each side isn’t handing out the same map.

Republicans look across the line to see a movement that runs through Black Lives Matter, Linda Sansour’s Women’s March, and culminates in groups such as Antifa, the Muslim Brotherhood and the BDS movement.

Democrats stare over the barbed wire and see the Tea Party, President Trump hardcore base and the NRA coalescing into the alt-right, white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

When there is blood in the streets between the extremists (as there was in Charlottesville and has increasingly been in clashes around the nation), the political maps come out. Enemies are identified and history tells us that far too often we use the oft-misleading rationale that an enemy of our enemy is our friend to enter uneasy and unhealthy alliances. We recognize how that method of calculation can backfire by reviewing the checkered realpolitik track record in foreign affairs. It is also the domestic political trapdoor through which the German establishment fell in 1933 and all of the world fell through it with them as the Nazis rose to full power.

German politics in the interwar period—the years between World Wars I and II—were chaotic. Here’s a speed course through the history. Conservatives and progressives tugged back and forth over bitter divisions for control of the parliament; Communists and the fledgling National Democratic Socialists (Nazis) fought violently in the streets for control of towns to gain footholds. Communists and Nazis each accreted a small base of power, and in the end, the balance of the German establishment’s concern went to its fear of communism. The more conservative elements reluctantly hopped into bed with the Nazis who promptly fulfilled their end of the bargain. This bit of Joseph Goebbels speaking in 1933 conveys the story well.

(Hat tip to Ben Shapiro for including this clip from a 2005 British-made documentary “Hitler in Colour” on his very fiery podcast today and prompting me to use it here.)

What do we take from this? Only that democracies aren’t invulnerable and a small or divided political center (in terms of dialogue, not beliefs of agenda) can be manipulated to follow its own interests straight to destruction.

It might be comforting to soothe oneself into blissful ignorance by picking up the flag of American exceptionalism and hugging it like a security blanket, believing that the mere existence of the values the nation was founded upon really do have magical prophylactic characteristics to repel viral forces as they emerge. (Constitution! Kills pesky extremism on contact!)

Because we’re immersed in an automated, push-button, retail on-demand world, it may have become very easy to also think of our way of life as self-cleaning. At times pundits promoting confidence in the durability of our system even speak of self-correction to quell fears about how far instability can really take us.

In reality, our system is not self-correcting at all. Our system requires real moral leadership and real will within the public to utilize the tools the system has provided to cause a correction to happen.

In order for that moral leadership to coalesce, it might be best to set aside Pollyannaish talk about how checks and balances and the oh-so-parchmenty substance of the Constitution form an impenetrable defense against threats to real freedom coming from several directions.  In short, it’s time for us to heed Sinclair Lewis’ warning and stop telling ourselves that it can’t happen here.  It—fascism, whether on the right or the left—can gain a foothold anywhere and when even a nation’s “mainstream” political dialogue becomes nothing more than artillery-grade name-calling across a deep and polarized policy divide, the ground becomes a little too fertile for extremism to grow.

We can do things in an effort to ensure that it won’t happen, but waiting for our leaders to adjust their behavior is not one of them. The hard, cold fact is that politicians are more responsive than they are proactive; they react to stimuli. Pat them on the head for a good deed and they do more good deeds. Smack them on the nose… you get the gist. It is necessary for all people, on both sides, to draw the same tough line for themselves and their political friends as they draw for their foes.

We have everything to gain and potentially so much to lose. Other generations have done their part to preserve the nation. If this is the most ours must do—to let each other know that extremism doesn’t have a home in any legitimate political movement—we’ll have drawn the short straw.

Biggest Players Silent on the ‘Day of Action’ for Net Neutrality

Last week I told you about net neutrality and the 2015 government takeover of the internet. The same day I posted, the issue was supposed to be front and center for the left-wing organizers’ “Day of Action” to “save” net neutrality.

Oh, you didn’t notice? Hardly anyone else did, either. Perhaps it’s because few people really care about net neutrality since they never had a problem to begin with. Or maybe they just don’t like the precedent of treating the internet like a public utility and potentially opening it up to endless regulation.

You have to hand it to the social justice warriors; their hearts are usually in the right place. They hear a word like “neutrality” and line right up. But the only thing that isn’t neutral is when big government places its thumb on the scale.

As I wrote last week, there is widespread agreement that users should be able to go wherever they like online without fear of selective discrimination against different websites, internet traffic, or data via Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

But heavy net neutrality restrictions are unnecessary, especially the preposterous public utility rules, and few things are truly as neutral as a free marketplace without government interference.

The interesting thing is the effort was originally backed by big names like Facebook, Airbnb, Spotify, Reddit, and Netflix, among others, sites that the protesters rely on daily, both for their lifestyle choices and their low-risk activism. Then it appears these companies, while supporting the “Day of Action,” kept a relatively low profile. Why?

The fact is that all of them are extremely powerful corporations worth tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars each. Would so many big-time companies really adapt left-wing causes out of the goodness of their hearts and an unshakable sense of justice?  Do they really care about fairness and all the malarkey about mom-and-pop shops?

Of course not; the activists got duped into supporting an objective that fortifies the bottom lines of these companies, the only thing that would compel them to take such bold steps.

Strict net neutrality protects their profitability for a few reasons. First, they are all well positioned now; in fact, near monopolies in their respective online spaces. Permissionless innovation can only loosen their grips, not tighten them. Breakthroughs in technology favor new entrants into the marketplace, unfettered by government, who can usurp the incumbent leaders. That’s why seemingly everyday Facebook simply buys up another new and innovative social media rival rather than compete with them.

Additionally, quasi-monopolies work best when they enjoy biased protections from the government. Overreaching net neutrality essentially protects them and discourages new investors because the utility regulations function similarly to price controls. Think about it: Google doesn’t want to pay more for better broadband just because investors want good returns on their investments.

So it turned out that on Tuesday, July 11th, the day before the Day of Action, Republican House leadership made it clear to Facebook, Google and Amazon that overly aggressive net neutrality activism could make it harder to work together on other policy issues that the companies really care about like privacy rules and legal liability for content on online platforms. So they abandoned, they toned down the resistance and left the millennials to fight the good fight.

As I said last week, the ultimate solution is to settle this issue once and for all by clearly defining the role of the federal government in the internet with a free-market based, legislative solution that locks in basic standards of net neutrality while also promoting continued private-sector investment and innovation. That’s a goal worth marching for.

Conservatives Need to Undo President Obama’s Damage to the Internet

What would you say if I told you that the federal government took an 80-year-old law, originally passed in order to regulate apples, and instead applied it today to oranges—rather than simply draft a new law specifically for oranges?

That’s far beyond the pale even for the feds, right?

Yet in 2015, that is exactly what happened. Let’s rewind to 1934, when Congress passed the Communications Act in order to address the growing network of telephones. Among other things, the law outlined provisions to regulate the Bell System as a “public utility.”

Eight decades later, President Obama and his Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chief, Tom Wheeler, decided that very same law—written years before all but the most rudimentary computers even existed—would work just fine for the federal government to get its hands on the internet.

How ridiculous. It’s not just that this tactic was a regulatory non-sequitur, or that very few people consider the internet to be a public utility in any way, but it was clearly a cynical, abusive end around of Congress well-established constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. It isn’t hyperbole to say this amounted to an attempted government takeover of the internet.

The Administration’s excuse for these rules at the time was to implement so-called net neutrality principles. But that doesn’t change the fact that the internet has almost nothing in common with traditional public utilities.

Moreover, nearly everyone in the tech industry and public policy circles already agrees on the principles behind net neutrality, the idea that users should be able to go wherever they like online without fear of selective discrimination against different websites, internet traffic, or data via Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Those principles had never been significantly violated in the first two decades of the internet’s existence—so net neutrality was basically a solution to a problem that didn’t exist.

From the 1990s through the 2000s, investors poured billions of dollars in capital into digital services including high-speed network. The Clinton and Bush administrations realized that a hands off approach was best for the internet’s growth.  They didn’t want to interfere with the visionaries and entrepreneurs blazing trails few others could conceive of or act on. Under that light regulatory touch the internet grew our economy, created jobs,  and changed our lives immeasurably.

But in the years since President Obama designated the internet a public utility, investment in broadband networks has declined by 5 percent. What would happen to our economy over the long term if the internet remains a public utility open to government meddling?

There are two ways to undo the damage the Obama administration did.

First, we need conservatives in Washington to stand up and take on the issue of overzealous net neutrality by rolling back Obama Era regulations that are jeopardizing the future of the internet. President Trump’s FCC chairman is doing that now.

But, additionally, Republicans in Congress also need to codify a free-market based, legislative solution that locks in basic standards of net neutrality while also promoting continued private-sector investment and innovation and in so doing prevents further shenanigans by the next Democratic president.

‘Recruit Bill Bryant for Seattle Mayor’ is Launched Online

It has been more than 50 years since Seattle voters elected a Republican mayor, but that’s not stopping some residents from trying to pull former port commissioner and 2016 Republican candidate for governor Bill Bryant into this year’s mayoral race.

The effort to recruit Bryant to join what is shaping up to be at least an 11-way contest took shape late Wednesday evening in the form of a website – www.recruitbillbryantformayor.com – asking for visitors to sign a petition.

The pitch to recruit Bryant into the race is an appeal to face reality. From the website:

Seattle is in disarray. Local elected officials are unwilling to address the homeless crisis, unable to keep our cost of living from skyrocketing, and refuse to work with businesses to create good, middle class jobs. Scandals and partisan politics have crippled our city. Enough is enough.

As a former Port Commissioner of Seattle, Bill Bryant has a proven record of protecting our environment, helping the homeless get back on their feet, and creating local jobs here in Seattle.

If you’re tired of the say-one-thing-do-another politicians then sign the petition to recruit Bill Bryant to run for Mayor of Seattle. It’s time we had a mayor who is fighting for all of us – the residents and taxpayers – and not the special interests.

It is the issue of the city’s growing population of permanent homeless, the problems it brings, and the failure of the Democrat-controlled city government to affect any positive change that may make the most compelling case for voters in indigo blue Seattle to consider Bryant.

Some may remember last year when Bryant, during a hotly contested partisan campaign for governor, showed up at a city hearing on homeless policy. According to The Seattle Times, the reaction of the crowd to what Bryant had to say was enough to overcome the inertia of Seattle’s extreme partisanship.

Here’s how angry the overflow crowd was at a Seattle City Hall hearing on homeless camping policies: Republican candidate for governor Bill Bryant received an ovation for declaring there should be zero tolerance for camping on public property.

That’s akin to Tom Brady getting a rousing cheer at CenturyLink Field.

The boisterous meeting Friday featured tearful testimony, audience members shouting over City Council members, and a cry for “recall” when Councilmember Mike O’Brien said homeless people have a right to sleep somewhere. The tone was unusual for archliberal Seattle.

Like some others, Bryant, a Seattle resident, said enabling people to live in tents was not compassionate but cruel.

Bryant isn’t alone in his assessment that city policies on homelessness and a host of other plaguing issues are exacerbating problems.

Patti Bishop, a former software entrepreneur and Seattleite since the 1990s, says she will work to get Bryant elected should he step in the race because the need for a change of leadership has reached a tipping point. She cites false compassion in the approaches city hall is taking on critical issues including drug addiction as accelerators of municipal decay.

“We have a beautiful city,” said Bishop. “It’s very sad for many of us to see the direction the city has taken.”

She also believes Bryant would be the only candidate in the race who has identified reasonable solutions. “He’s the only one who’s said, ‘I’m going to address homelessness,’ and had a real step-by-step plan.”

For what it’s worth, if Bryant would consider a run, he played it cool in his statements to the press Thursday most of which followed similar lines to this response he gave to KING-5 political reporter Natalie Brand:

Even to get through the primary, the hill Bryant would need to climb would be steep. In the 2016 gubernatorial race, he grabbed less than 20% of Seattle’s vote. For those who want to retain hope, creative electoral math may yield scenarios to maintain enthusiasm.

If the field of Democrats, socialists and other left-wing competitors for the office continues to expand (there are currently 10 declared candidates), and Bryant occupied the moderate ground on his own, that piece of the pie begins to look slightly more viable in a top two primary. Some will see the prospect of a chaotic scrum as a way of leveling the odds, but the likelihood of narrow margins between candidates increases with every name on the ballot.

Regardless of whether Bryant jumps in and finds enough votes to get through a crowded primary, or jumps in at all, there will still be a void to fill in Seattle politics.

This city that aspires to promote diversity above all else is not just homogeneous in terms of political thought, but the need to conform to canon is policed. When the dominant ideology bears rotten fruit, the policing becomes more severe.

But forced cognitive dissonance is a condition that people do not enjoy living with. They find ways to realign their beliefs with reality. The tool for that realignment may not be Bill Bryant, but it will be someone or something someday.

The petition to recruit Bill Bryant for Seattle mayor can be found at www.recruitbillbryantformayor.com.

Here’s What Happens When a Woman Runs for State Senate… as a Republican

Seattlepi.com blogger Joel Connelly must not have been listening when former First Lady Michelle Obama called for political fighters to “go high.”

The veteran columnist’s first strike following the announcement that a new Republican has entered the pivotal race for state Senate in the 45th legislative district ran under the following headline:

“One of D.C.’s ’50 Most Beautiful’ shooting for Wash. senate”

Hat tip to The Stranger’s Heidi Groover for catching the original headline and posting it to Twitter with a tip from one journo to another:

The offense seems obvious. Instead of inserting any of Englund’s legitimate accomplishments into the headline, Seattlepi.com – and Connelly by association – chose to place a metaphoric tiara onto her head. Only the author of the headline knows for sure if the intent was to inaugurate a gross misconception that Englund is just a pretty face. *

We all know, however, what would happen if a female Democratic candidate received this treatment. A judgment of malice would come swiftly and the Republican candidate in the race would be asked to defend or repudiate obvious misogyny emanating from ‘their side.’

Nevertheless, within a few hours, the headline morphed into something less offensive, though still somewhat inaccurate and obvious in its intent. The scrubbing of the headline heads off a conversation in which uncomfortable questions about double standards practiced by the left would be asked. Have no fear, though. Based on water cooler chatter about how Englund’s candidacy and ethnicity have already been discussed in at least one liberal klatsch, there will be other opportunities.

 

* Ed. On the matter of whether Connelly authored the original headline, normally journalists are able to say honestly that they don’t write their own headlines. There’s no reason, however, to suspect this is the case with Connelly’s pieces, which is why we chose to preserve ambiguity.

To say that Seattlepi.com operates a streamlined editorial process would be a gross overstatement. Stories still run under the banner of a former print newspaper enterprise for which longtime locals have a fond memory, but now the masthead flies like a flag over a derelict ghost ship.

So, based on operational realities of a gutted newsroom (we believe this is sad, regardless of whether we agree with the general slant of Connelly’s writing), and other tell-tale clues that indicate a second set of eyes doesn’t often grace his work, we’re going suspect that Connelly was doing what has become commonplace in most threadbare news organizations – self-editing and self-publishing. There’s nothing wrong with that – we do that here at NW Daily Marker, too, out of necessity since we have literally NO operating budget outside of what the publisher (a.k.a, Me) spends from his own pocket.

Still, the authorship of the headline is relevant in assigning responsibility for what was an obvious and cheap attempt to diminish a woman’s more substantive accomplishments and instead push forward a narrative that her primary achievement is having a pretty face.

Jinyoung Lee Englund Announces in Key Washington State Senate Race

The wait is over. A Republican has stepped into what is likely to be this year’s spotlight race in Washington state.

Jinyoung Lee Englund announced Tuesday that she will run in the special election to fill the state Senate seat left vacant by the untimely death of Sen. Andy Hill.

Jinyoung Lee Englund, candidate for Washington state Senate. [Official campaign photo.]

Englund enters the race almost two months after Democrat and Deputy King County Prosecutor Manka Dhingra tossed her hat into the ring.

Time is money and Dhingra’s head start can be measured in dollars. As of the end of March, Dhingra had raised nearly $200,000, according to reports made to the State Public Disclosure Commission. Don’t expect the imbalance to be anything but temporary, however. Seasoned operatives expect the race to draw in record or near-record dollars from both sides.

The stakes are high. A Democratic win returns to them full control of the Legislature and brings Gov. Jay Inslee’s pen back into the picture as a tool to enact their agenda. A victory by Republicans retains the only solid foothold to stand on when moving forward fresh approaches and putting the brakes on bad ideas.

A Democratic proposal to enact a tax on income earned from capital gains is just one agenda piece that could swing with the 45th. Transportation angst is another and there are many more. So, although voters in the 45th will ultimately determine control of the Legislature, voter anxiety over those questions that will feature in the race is shared by voters statewide.

The full release that accompanied Englund’s announcement can be found on her campaign website.

The Many Lies of Susan Rice

A simple error or more of the same from the Liar of Benghazi?

First there was the Benghazi lie, in which she appeared on five Sunday morning news shows to tell the American people that the attack was motivated by a YouTube video.

The Bowe Bergdahl lie, in which she assured us that the U.S. Army deserter had served with honor and distinction.

The Turkish airbase lie, in which she stated that the Turkish government had agreed to allow their airbases to be used for operations against Syria and Iran.

The unmasking lie, in which she first claimed she didn’t know anything at all about it, and then, after it was revealed that she had, indeed, requested the unmasking, stated, in a stunning display of grammatical malfeasance, that she “leaked nothing to nobody.” We’re still waiting to see if that last bit is a lie or not.

And now, in the face of Syria’s recent gas attack on their own citizen’s, we have the chemical weapons lie, in which she said as recently as January that Assad had “voluntarily and verifiably” relinquished all the country’s chemical weapons.

What did I miss?

Why do people continue to believe anything this woman has to say? If she said the sky was blue, I’d go outside to make certain it wasn’t green. And for the love of God, who at the Washington Post thought this professional liar was qualified to write an op-ed on presidential truthfulness?

Charles Woods, whose son, Tyrone Woods, was killed in Benghazi, suggested recently that perhaps Rice should take a lie detector test. He might be onto something there. Although I’m not entirely certain she couldn’t fool the machine.

Susan Rice has no acquaintance with the truth and people who believe that she’ll ever tell the whole truth about the unmasking incident are – how can I say this nicely – delusional.

[This post first appeared here on the author's personal blog.]

The Democrats’ #1 Political Strategy

If Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell actually believe the things they tweet, they may be the stupidest people around, lacking sufficient intellectual depth to understand any topic at more than a surface level.

And that’s if I’m being nice.

The other possibility is that they’re shameless partisan hacks*, mindlessly spouting off leftist talking points regardless of the truth. In other words, they’re liars.

For example, last Thursday, the Senate voted on whether or not to allow states, at the discretion of their own legislatures, to withhold Title X funds from family planning clinics that provide abortions. Basically, the vote allows states to choose not to use that federal money to fund Planned Parenthood. That’s it. That’s all the vote authorized. Not a single thing else.

Federalism is good, right?

Not according to Murray and Cantwell, who apparently don’t trust states to make the “right” decision. You know, the decision that agrees with them. So they were going on about the Title X vote as though every woman in America has suddenly been cut off from access to any health care whatsoever. Or as Patty Murray says…ZOMG, Women will die and Mike Pence is the devil!

Let me state this as clearly as I can. If Planned Parenthood values providing other kinds of services more than they value providing abortions, they can simply stop doing abortions and reduce the risk of losing Title X funds to zero. But they won’t, which makes it seem as though Planned Parenthood is unnaturally attached to providing a service which makes up, as they claim, only 3% of their business.

If last week’s vote accomplishes nothing other than to allow the states to disburse Title X funds, why, then, are Democrats so determined to mislead the public about it?

I recently wrote, “Democrats…repeat lies until they’re ground into the public consciousness and internalized as truth.” Democrats know that defunding Planned Parenthood is a winning issue for the GOP; therefore they must lie to try to steal the win. That they lie in ways specifically calculated to instill fear in women is particularly contemptible, because it illustrates their misogynistic belief that women are politically naive and easily manipulated. This is the basis for the entire “Republican war on women” story line.

Fear is a powerful motivator. Powerful enough to cause otherwise rational and intelligent women to march for rights they already have. Fearmongering. It’s the Democrats’ #1 strategy and it’s disgusting.


* Patty Murray reveals herself to be a shameless partisan hackMaria Cantwell reveals herself to be a shameless partisan hack

[This post first appeared here on the author's personal blog.]
[Featured image credit: DonkeyHotey, used under Creative Commons license.]

The Lyrics Have Changed, But the Song Remains the Same: Dems’ New Spin on Income Tax Should be Cast Aside

A broken clock will be correct twice a day, but a broken record will be flawed every time you play it.

House Democrats in Olympia have dropped the needle once more on a tired old loser of a song, a ballad of yearning for a tax on income. They’re banking that this time around they’ll have a hit, but it seems the vinyl is more warped than ever.

One obstacle that proponents of an income tax face is the prohibition in Washington state law against taxes on income. Another is white-hot voter antipathy for the whole idea.

Democrats have orchestrated a cynical workaround that bends language and cudgels logic into submission. House Bill 2186 is the first pressing of that mix, in which – through the magic of word substitution – a tax on capital gains income becomes an excise tax.

Sorry, Democrats. The lyrics may have changed, but the song remains the same. In taxes, just as in biology, there are objective truths that no amount of creative renaming can avoid. I may desire to fly, but I can’t expect to get airborne just by calling my arms wings. Neither can an income tax be called an excise tax just because politicians want a soaring spending plan fueled from a newly tapped well of revenue.

Nevertheless, as the current legislative session winds down, the Democrats are moving forward with a disciplined effort to blur definitions and disorient voters.

On Tuesday, Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-Tacoma) spoke with radio talk show host and veteran political analyst John Carlson on KVI 570 AM. (The entire podcast is also embedded at the bottom of this post. It’s well worth listening to the whole interview.)

Jinkins, now serving a fourth term representing the 27th legislative district, tried to walk Carlson and his listeners through her reasoning about why capital gains aren’t income. Not surprising, her logic was discordant and nonfunctioning.

Rep. Laurie Jinkins: Something qualifies to be an excise tax when you sell something voluntarily and you get revenue from the sale of that. So, the primary example is actually stocks and bonds.

You might buy a stock for $100 and sell it for $1,000. The capital gain is the $900 that you make as income just for selling something. …

It’s a transactional… An excise tax is a transactional tax.

So far, Jinkins isn’t wrong about what a capital gain or an excise tax are, but excise taxes are assessed on gross revenue, not net. It’s a meaningful distinction. Nonetheless, Jinkins strains to lay down a bridge between these disjointed ideas and justify how a tax on capital gains income can be defined as an excise.

Carlson: However, when you sell property or when you sell equity – stocks, bond, etc. – precious metals, whatever – the money that you gain from that that is taxed, that’s income. So, why isn’t this an income tax? You’re taxing me on what I’ve gained in income from selling that investment.

Jinkins: Well that’s, I mean, really this is kind of technical-legal, a technical/legal issue…

Carlson: (interjecting) It shouldn’t be.

Jinkins: If folks are going to argue that the capital gains tax is an income tax, then they’re going to argue that all sorts of things like the real estate excise tax, which the courts have long held is an excise tax and not an income tax under the Washington State…

If you’re still not feeling Jinkins’ groove here, you’re not alone. In fact, using the example of a real estate transaction makes it even clearer that an excise tax is assessed on a transaction, but not on any gain the seller receives. Real estate excise tax is calculated, generally, on the selling price, not the seller’s net proceeds. There’s a reason for that. If it were assessed on net proceeds, it would be a capital gains tax and capital gains are, legally and in common understanding, income.

A key feature of excise taxes is that they apply to the gross amount of a transaction. With capital gains, there can be no tax without gain, but with an excise tax a seller of a good or service would pay the tax even if they lose money. This is simply not true of an income tax.

This creature the Democrats are conjuring – the capital gains excise tax – is an impossibility. Once you realize a gain on the sale of property, you have more than you started with and everyone understands that intuitively as income. Yes, there was technically a transaction that occurred, but a capital gains tax isn’t triggered until a gain is received as income.

Carlson digs into that point further and prompts a backlash from the representative.

Jinkins: The issue of whether or not something is an income tax or an excise tax is really based on long-standing Washington state court decision that define the difference between what’s an income tax and an excise tax. And so this is an excise tax which is based again on the sale of something and the money that you earn on the sale of something and the money that you earn as the result of a sale of something…

Carlson: Or is an excise tax a consumption tax?

Jinkins: That’s what you want to call it because you think that people who hate an income tax will therefore hate a capital gains tax.

Jinkins swipe is ironic. It is obvious that the entire purpose for the Democrats’s word-swapping strategy is to ditch politically radioactive labels while also create confusion with voters. (The idea of an income tax is almost universally understood. Excise, not so much, as is further evidence by Jinkins’ struggle.) The notion of a capital gains excise tax is a chimera born of liberal desperation, but that won’t stop Democrats from attempting to bend reality to suit their needs.

Opponents of an income tax on capital gains are would be wise to aggressively smother this effort now, not only in Olympia, but among the voters at large who are not paying close attention. Once this hungry camel gets its nose under the tent, the odds of getting a favorable interpretation from the state Supreme Court are miniscule and it becomes a matter of tweaking the percentages, caps and exemptions to squeeze more tax out of more Washingtonians.

Many Washingtonians might think to themselves, “This isn’t something I have to deal with anyway.” That could be initially true, but time has a way of turning the tables when it comes to creeping taxation. Even in the initial implementation of such a plan, Washington residents should be consider that in order for state government to know that you did or did not receive any capital gains subject to the tax, a return filing would likely be necessary. Welcome to your newly christened state income tax mechanism.

Voters may yet have a chance to reject (again) an income tax in this newly repackaged form. There’s a good chance that Democrats will queue it up onto the playlist for the spotlight dance later this year in the 45th legislative district special election to decide who will permanently replace the late Sen. Andy Hill.

[Featured image credit: Adobe Stock]

Page 1 of 70

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén