Showing posts with label Peter Hannaford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Hannaford. Show all posts

Friday, September 18, 2015

"I’m just one of hundreds of people with similar stories of Pete’s friendship and kindness. RIP Peter Hannaford, an unsung hero of the Conservative moment."

◼ Peter Hannaford, RIP - Jim Roberts/Human Events
at Labels: ,

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Memorial service for Peter Hannaford

Saturday, September 12th at 2 p.m.
Christ Episcopal Church, 15th and H streets, Eureka













◼ Peter Hannaford, RIP - Jim Roberts/Human Events

"I’m just one of hundreds of people with similar stories of Pete’s friendship and kindness. RIP Peter Hannaford, an unsung hero of the Conservative moment."
at Labels: ,

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Peter Hannaford (1932-2015): My Friend Who Made History

"A memorial service for Peter Hannaford is scheduled for Saturday at Christ Episcopal Church. Hannaford is survived by his wife Irene, two sons Richard and Donald, and two grandchildren Thomas and Patricia.

“I would just love to see a virtually full church. His friendships in business and the church, you name it, are widespread and it’s not just in Eureka, which is a wonderful thing,” Irene Hannaford said."











◼ Peter Hannaford, RIP - Jim Roberts/Human Events

"I’m just one of hundreds of people with similar stories of Pete’s friendship and kindness. RIP Peter Hannaford, an unsung hero of the Conservative moment."
at Labels: , , , ,

Remembering Peter Hannaford












◼ Peter Hannaford, 1932 – 2015 - Eureka Books

(W)orking with Peter and his publisher, the University of Nebraska Press, we were able to host a book-launch for Arts Alive (September 5, 2015).... We had a good turn out and Peter spent the evening talking with friends and well-wishers, and selling copies of his books. We are all shocked and saddened by his passing, but glad he was able to spend his last night doing what he loved, being an author with a new book. Peter was one of those naturally charismatic people who was liked by everyone who met him. He had led a very interesting life and was an endless source of stories, but even with his 83rd birthday just weeks away, he was still thinking about what was next. His was a full life, lived fully, and there is a lot to admire in that....



◼ I just saw him yesterday, today he is gone. A loss words cannot do justice. - John Chiv/Words Worth



















◼ Peter Hannaford, RIP - Jim Roberts/Human Events

"I’m just one of hundreds of people with similar stories of Pete’s friendship and kindness. RIP Peter Hannaford, an unsung hero of the Conservative moment."
at Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

MCKINLEY WHO?

◼ Could it be President Obama had never heard of him? - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator

If you’d mentioned the name of the 25th president before this week, that’s the answer you would have gotten from about everyone except some Ohioans and the residents of a small California city (more about them later).

President Obama changed all that with his announcement that the nation’s highest peak, Mt. McKinley, would be officially renamed “Denali” by his secretary of the interior. Never mind that a 1917 Act of Congress had designated it as “Mt. McKinley.” As we know, Acts of Congress don’t matter when Obama’s working on his most important priority, his “legacy.”

He was on his way to a three-day visit to Alaska to tout his global warming agenda and said, in effect, to Alaskans, “Buy into my climate change blather and I’ll give you ‘Denali.’” They did and he did. “Denali” (“Great Mountain”) is the name native Alaskans have used for the peak for ages. Some years ago, the National Park Service named the park in which it sets, Denali National Park. In daily reference both names for the mountain often have been used side by side.

From his first election, in 1896, Willliam McKinley became one of the nation’s most popular presidents. He introduced the “front porch” campaign, never leaving his home town, Canton, Ohio. He invited one and all to visit him, and delegations large and larger came every day but Sunday. Railroads offered special ticket discounts for Canton-bound groups. Brass bands accompanied them from the railroad station to his front lawn. There, he met them, made remarks, answered questions, shook hands and mingled.

His Democrat opponent, William Jennings Bryan, was a skilled orator and stumped non-stop, demanding the free coinage of silver (which would have been inflationary). “Do not crucify this nation on a cross of gold” was his theme line. There were anti-Semitic overtones to all this because gold was often associated with Jewish bankers and traders.

McKinley’s strong support for the gold standard, for tariffs to protect American industries (not to raise revenue), and his emphasis on a sound economic put Bryan’s anti-Semitism to rest and resulted in a clear victory at the polls.

As president, he obtained passage of the Gold Standard Act. This, in turn, set the stage for the nation’s great 20th century growth.

When Spain spurned his efforts to negotiate freedom for Cuba (and the U.S. battleship Maine blew up in Havana Harbor), he presided over the Spanish-American War, which was won in a matter of months.

He saw to the rebuilding of the nation’s military and the creation of the Great White Fleet of warships (it was Theodore Roosevelt, his second vice president, who sent it around the world after McKinley’s death).

He had acquired Hawaii, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. In being reelected in 1900 he won all but four states. We’ll never know how much more he might have done, for on September 5, 1901, while attending an exposition in Cleveland, he was shot by an anarchist and died nine days later.

Now that McKinley is suddenly in the news again, the reaction is not known of the people of Arcata, California (pop.15,000), home of the state’s smallest state university campus.

For several years a vocal group there has pushed to remove the bronze statue of McKinley that for many decades has graced the Plaza, the town’s center. It covers a square block, with well-tailored shrubs, flowers, and lawns. There are walkways and benches for idling. It is an altogether pleasing setting and a good way to honor a man who brought honor to his country. By Arcata’s current standards, though, he would be considered irrelevant, even Politically Incorrect. Nevertheless, recently, the Arcata City Council voted to keep things as they are.

In nearby McKinleyville (which changed its name from Minorsville in 1903 in memory of the late president), there is no talk of changing the name to Obamaville or anything else.
___________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated for the late President Reagan for number of years. He is the editor of ◼ “Washington Merry-Go-Round: The Diaries of Drew Pearson, 1960-69” to be published in September. (Pre-order available on Amazon) ◼ Peter Hannaford will be signing his new book at Eureka Books during Arts Alive! on Saturday, September 5th. - Hunter Cresswell/Times-Standard

at Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Former Reagan advisor will sign new book at Arts Alive!

◼ Peter Hannaford will be signing his new book during Arts Alive! on Saturday.
Hunter Cresswell/Times-Standard

“The book is quite interesting ... . It’s a very good overall picture of what life was like in the ’60s,” Peter Hannaford said of the new book he edited, “Washington Merry-Go-Round: The Drew Pearson Diaries, 1960-1969.”

“It really chronicles a very insider Washington perspective,” Eureka Books co-owner Scott Brown said. The store will host the event during Arts Alive! on Saturday from 6-9 p.m.


Eureka Books  
Address: 426 2nd St, Eureka, CA 95501
Phone:(707) 444-9593
Hours: Daily 10:00 am – 6:00 pm
_______________
at Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

The Hole in Trump’s Wall



◼ A wall will do nothing to police violations by those who overstay their visas. - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator – 8.24.15

Donald Trump is commanding center stage with his pronouncements on illegal immigration. He says he will build a wall along the Mexican border, from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico, and that he will get the government of Mexico to pay for it.

He conjures up a vision of thousands of Mexican rapists, drug dealers and other criminals flowing here unimpeded. He claims he “invented” immigration as an issue. It’s true he is the one who has made it the issue of the day every day recently, but the other candidates had been discussing it for months.

Trump suggests that the Mexican government might even be behind the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border. He said he had evidence to substantiate that claim. When asked for it by a journalist, he said he’d had a guided tour of the Mexican border. It turns out this included a chance conversation with a member of the Border Patrol who grumbled that he thought the Mexican government hadn’t been doing enough to stop border crossings.

Trump talks as if a 10-foot-high wall across the border will stop the flow of illegals into the country. He adds that the wall “should have a door” through which we can welcome legal immigrants.

Unmentioned in Trump’s orations is that the U.S. Government estimates that some 40 percent of the approximately 11 million illegal immigrants now in the country came here on legitimate visas. The problem is that they did not return home when their visas expired.

This is a very large hole in Trump’s imaginary wall and deserves discussion.

Under the present system, there is no formal warning to inbound temporary visa holders to be prepared to depart on time. The Immigration and Customs service does not know where to find them and thus ignores them.

Needed is a comprehensive system that begins at the point of entry (in most cases an airport). In addition to showing a passport and visa, an entrant should be required to provide an address (or addresses) of where he/she expects to be during the time of the visit, along with telephone numbers and an email address.

In addition, these visa holders should be required to show evidence of departure transportation (a return air ticket, for example). The number of the ticket would be recorded and verified by the Immigration & Customs service.

The visa holder would also be warned that his/her visa will be canceled if they do not call in advance of expiration to report any new contact information.

The airline, cruise line, or other transportation mode should be advised to notify Immigration & Customs if the person seeks to change any homebound travel arrangements (such as canceling a ticket and requesting a refund).

Then, say, a week before visa’s expiration, the holder is called by Immigration & Customs to be reminded of the departure date. If, on departure day, the person is not aboard the outbound flight, notification would be widely disseminated that the visa is canceled and cannot be renewed. The holder is to be picked up by authorities for immediate deportation.

This will take planning and legislation, but it’s worth doing — compared to what the government does now, which is nothing once the person is allowed in.

Will Trump recognize this and make it part of his “wall” strategy? It’s time for him to replace ringing generalizations with such substance.
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated for the late President Reagan for number of years. He is the editor of ◼ “Washington Merry-Go-Round: The Diaries of Drew Pearson, 1960-69” to be published in September. (Pre-order available on Amazon)
at Labels: , , ,

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Peter Hannaford and Robert Zapesochny on reviving ‘#peace through strength’

at Labels: , , ,

Monday, July 27, 2015

THE DONALD’S LOG CABIN

◼ Tippecanoe and Donald Trump too, you might say. - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator 6/23/15

In announcing his presidential candidacy, Donald Trump used his patented carnival barker’s routine. After that he took off for New Hampshire to actually campaign.

At his first stop he drew a good-sized crowed. After his pitch, reporters asked some of those attending what they thought of Trump as a candidate. One man told an interviewer, “He says it like it is. I like the fact he started at the bottom and built his success himself.”

The legendary rags-to-riches story? Not exactly. Donald Trump was the son of Fred Trump, a well-established and wealthy real estate developer in New York City. His company, Elizabeth Trump and Son, specialized in middle-class rental housing in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. Unglamorous, but it filled a need.

After some earlier school difficulties, young Donald was sent to the New York Military Academy to shape up, which he did. There, he earned academic honors and played on the football, soccer, and baseball teams. He then spent two years at Fordham University followed by two, and a degree, at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, which at the time was one of the few universities with a real estate degree program.

Donald started at the bottom (if you consider an assignment from his father “the bottom”) before he graduated from Penn. Father Fred, sensing that Donald had a real knack for the business, asked him to come up with a plan to turn around a foreclosed apartment complex in Cincinnati. He did, and the company sold the project for a solid profit a few years later.

“The Donald” was off and running. In 1971, his father turned over control of the company to Donald who renamed it The Trump Organization. From this point on he embarked on a long series of projects, nearly all of them successful. He built numerous apartment and office towers, hotels, casinos, golf courses, “reality” television shows and he owns the Miss Universe beauty pageant.

Back to that fan in New Hampshire who admires Trump for pulling himself up by his bootstraps—so the speak. Therein may lie the formula for campaign success. Trump, who brags endlessly about everything else, could begin bragging about his humble beginnings (part-time job to put himself through college) and his determination (real) to succeed.

There is a political precedent for this sort of borrowed personal history. In the first half of the 19th century it was popular among politicians to have log cabin roots. That is, they were born in one or at least their parents were. It was true of Lincoln, but not of some others. Take one of the most successful users, William Henry Harrison, the 9th president, elected in 1840. He was governor of the large Indiana Territory (now several states) after winning the Battle of Tippecanoe over area tribes.

After the Whigs nominated him a Baltimore newspaper controlled by Democrats disparaged him, writing that he should be given “a barrel of hard cider and pension of two thousand a year and… he will sit the remainder of his days in a log cabin…” This gave him the humble-beginnings touch he needed. In fact, he was born at Berkeley Plantation, a large spread on the James River in Virginia. It had been in his family since 1726 and his grandfather was a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Harrison’s supporters buried that “elitist” background. All campaign signs and badges emblazoned with a log cabin. Every headquarters was called a “log cabin,” with the latch string out and a hard cider on tap.

The Democrats’ candidate, Martin Van Buren, of Kinderhook, New York, was always impeccably tailored and was thus depicted as a dandy against plain, old Log Cabin Harrison, who won.

So there it is, a winning strategy for The Donald.
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , ,

FOR YOUR TRAVEL INCONVENIENCE

◼ Take it from an experienced traveler: it doesn’t have to be this way. - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator 6/27/2015
at Labels: ,

Sunday, July 26, 2015

How Russia threatens Internet freedom

◼ Claiming to ‘protect’ privacy, it grants ‘security’ access to customer data - Peter Hannaford/Washington Times 7/9/15

Beginning in September a new Russian law — the Personal Data Law — will require international Internet firms with Russian customers to process and store data about them on Russian servers.

Ostensibly, this is intended to protect Russian citizens’ privacy. In fact, its purpose is to gain government access to that privacy and to cramp the competition of international Internet companies.

By forcing the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Microsoft to store personal communications and data of their Russian customers inside Russia, the country’s security services will have immediate access to that information.

Paranoia apparently played a role in the legislation. Russian leader Vladimir Putin said in an April television talk program, “The Internet began when [it] appeared as a special CIA project and is still being developed that way.” Mr. Putin has also referred to it as a CIA “front” and that nothing coming from the Americans can be trusted.

Originally, the law was to take effect in January; however, Internet-freedom advocates raised such a rumpus that the date was pushed out to Sept. 1.

The law will harm Russia’s estimated 76 million Internet users. For example, it will disrupt travel planning of those who rely on online services such as international airline ticketing, hotel bookings and payment — even visa services.

The law will also hurt the already-weakened Russian economy, according to a new report by the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE). It estimates the law will cut $5.7 billion off the country’s gross domestic product.

ECIPE’s report states, “Investments in the Russian economy would drop by 1.4 percent, with considerable effects on employment . It is unlikely that losses of such scale could be compensated and offset by a few jobs created in [Russian] data processing.”

If the non-Russian companies now providing these services were to comply with the law and move their Russian data to in-country servers, the cost would have to be passed on to their customers. And there may not be enough time between now and September for these countries to rent Russian servers, let alone build new ones.

Several Western Internet companies have already decided to leave what had been a growing market. Microsoft began the move with the announcement it would move its Skype development office from Moscow to Prague. Adobe has ceased its Russian operations.

The popular music-streaming service Spotify, based in Sweden, has canceled plans to launch a Russian service. The Russian business daily RBK cites as the reasons the new Personal Data Law, along with Russia’s declining economy and ruble.

Google, while insisting it is still committed to its Russian users, has announced it is closing its engineering office in Moscow. The new law was not mentioned in its announcement, but must have figured strongly in this decision.

All these companies have had to weigh the cost of converting to this new mandate in relation to present and potential revenue. There is the cost of segregating Russian data from the rest; the cost of renting a new batch of servers; and the time- and labor-consuming cost of software reprogramming.

The office of the United States Trade Representative says of the Russian Personal Data Law that it would “affect a broad range of cross-border services.”

This law can be seen as an extension of the Kremlin’s strategy to clamp down on free speech. Ever since the arrival of Edward Snowden in Moscow, after his theft and publication of classified U.S. government data, the Russian government has been steadily restricting media freedom. It has banned foreign interests from obtaining majority ownership of any mass medium and is developing new laws to extend restrictions on “promoting extremism” to extend to bloggers as well as news websites and publications.

_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

THE ENVIRONMENT GOES TO POT

◼ Stealing water in a drought won’t help legalize marijuana. - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator 6/30/15

Marijuana “grows” are the new environmental menace. Teams of sheriff’s deputies from three northern California counties found ample evidence of this in raids on several illegal grows last week. They were in a remote area called Island Mountain, where the three counties of the “Emerald Triangle” (Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino) converge.

The deputies served 20 search warrants, then seized and disposed of 86,578 “adult” marijuana plants, 4,394 pounds of processed marijuana, and 15 pounds of marijuana hashish in brick form. Along with these they seized 25 guns, 50,000 rounds of ammunition, and $8,877 in cash. They estimated the “street value” of the marijuana haul to be $26.5 million.

Officials of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife accompanied the teams to assess the effect of the grows on watersheds. They found 97 environmental violations. (Note: Combined, the seized plants required 50,000 gallons of water a day. One ounce of processed marijuana requires 34 gallons of water.)

They found several reservoirs that were used to water the marijuana grows. These had been bulldozed out of hillsides to divert (that is, steal) water from local streams. There was other land grading—without permits—as well as evidence of diesel fuel spills, dumped oil, and garbage. Most of these grows were in large greenhouses which use huge amounts of fertilizer. This leeches into local watersheds, causing algae “blooms” downstream.

Diesel fuel is used in the generators that provide illumination and growth lights for the crops.

In earlier raids, when most grows were smaller and outdoors, growers spread rodenticides to kill rats. These also killed small animals such as ferrets and martins.

Both legal and illegal marijuana is grown in California. In 1996 voters approved the use of medical marijuana. A user first needs a physician’s letter of recommendation. This can be shown at a licensed dispensary in order to get a “215” card. This permits a few plants to be grown by the holder or allows a third person to do it. Several growers may grow plants for several card holders.

The county sheriff’s office estimates there are 5,000 marijuana growers in Humboldt County alone, with a large percentage being illegal. As for the Island Mountain raids, “Growers in the area have an early warning system,” the local Times-Standard reports, “with people calling up the road when official vehicles are seen, allowing growers to leave the premises before police arrive.”

It makes no difference, a Humboldt County sheriff told the paper: “We don’t need anybody around to prove who lives there.” Since the Island Mountain area is not promising lumber-harvesting or cattle ranching land, about the only activity around is marijuana-growing.

California’s dry and wet spells come and go. The current dry one is in its second year, so there is widespread worry about the health of the area’s streams and rivers. If there is not enough water coming down from the creeks of the watersheds, there will not be enough for young salmon and steelhead to thrive in the rivers so they can later head out to sea.

Area environmentalists, who were largely silent when small mammals were being killed by growers’ rodenticides, are now joining the law enforcers in decrying the theft of water from public lands to feed large illegal grows. A group of legal growers is asking for definitive regulations as a way to reduce the number of those grows.

The Island Mountain raid was only the beginning. The sheriffs’ teams are preparing to mount more raids on illegal grows throughout the summer.
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , , ,

Saturday, June 20, 2015

PENSION ROULETTE



◼ A 2016 ballot initiative could save California from its unfunded public employee pensions. - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator 6/16/15

Many states, counties, and cities are in a budget vise caused by funds they are required to set aside to pay pensions for retired public employees. California may be in the worst shape.

Ever since Jerry Brown—in his first incarnation as Governor (1975-79) —approved collective bargaining by public employee unions they have used the union dues the state deducts from public employee paychecks to fund legislators’ election campaigns.

Over the last 40 years the legislature has been dominated by Democrats in all but a few years. It is not much of a stretch to say it is more-or-less owned by the public employee unions, on the one hand, and the environmental lobby, on the other.

In most cases, public employee pensions are “defined benefit” plans. That is, once the benefit is calculated, the government entity promises to pay that amount monthly for the life of the retired employee. With these plans it is government administrators who decide where to invest the money. The retiree receives the promised pension amount whether the state’s finances are in the black or the red or whether the invested pension funds make money or lose it.


The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) handles pension investments for state employees and most of the state’s municipalities. To illustrate how efficient the “defined benefit” system is, and how profitable its investment strategy, California’s unfunded pension liabilities now exceed $1 trillion.

Now and then the state does have a budget surplus. Recently, the state finance office reported that this year’s tax collections are running ahead of projections. The Democratic legislators immediately began talking about all the good works on which they would like to spend this money. At present in Sacramento there are a dozen proposals to increase both taxes and spending. Never mind the unfunded pension liabilities.

Now come two men, one a Democrat, the other a Republican, who are convinced there is a better way. Chuck Reed, former mayor of San Jose, the state’s fourth largest city, led the overhaul of that city’s own pension system. He has teamed up with Carl DeMaio, a former San Diego City Councilman, who was active in a city pension reform movement there.

They are leading a group that will circulate petitions for a 2016 ballot initiative that would give governments the right to replace the current system with a “defined contribution” program. Most businesses and industries moved to this system in recent years. It would be similar to 401(k) plans in which the employee sets his/her payroll deduction amount. The public body, like a private employer, may increase this by making a lump sum contribution, say, annually. Once established, the public contribution could be increased only by popular vote.

As in private pension programs, the employee would own his/her fund and would have investment choices to be made, within a determined range. The new system would go into effect beginning in 2019 with new hires. Current retirees and workers already under the old plan would not be affected.

Opposition to this reform will come from CalPERS, which sees its power threatened. It is easily the largest public pension program in the nation. For the same reason, the chiefs of public employee unions will fight it because under the present system their workforce continues to grow, which means more dues in their treasuries with which to buy support in the state legislature.

Inescapable, however, is the fact that growing pension liabilities are strangling many cities, which are forced to cut services in order to meet payments to retirees. It is estimated that, as a group, they will pay $5.1 billion in pension contributions in this fiscal year.

The current system plays roulette with the taxpayers’ money. This initiative could be the way for them to leave the gaming table.
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , ,

Friday, May 29, 2015

PROPOSITION 14: PARTY WRECKER?

◼ Will California GOP’s only hope now be the occasional conservative Democrat? - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator 5/28/15

In California in 2009, Abel Maldonado, a liberal Republican state senator, made a Faustian bargain with the Democrats who controlled the legislature.

They needed one more vote to pass their budget. He would give it to them in exchange for their okaying his brainchild, a ballot measure to do away with party primaries.

As a result, the legislature sent it to the June 2010 ballot as a referendum that would amend the state constitution and create a one-ballot primary for everything but president, judicial positions, and non-partisan races. Then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a nominal Republican, announced his support and rewarded Maldonado by appointing him lieutenant governor for a few months (to fill a vacancy).

The voters rewarded Maldonado for his mischief by defeating him for a full term in that year’s election. On the other hand, they passed what had become Proposition 14 by nearly 54 percent. Since then, all candidates, regardless of party, appear on a single ballot in the primary. The top two advance to the general election in November.

In June 2014, 28 out of 150 legislative races—nearly 20 percent—had only one party on the November ballot (more Democrats than Republicans).

The most recent case was a special election held last week for the 7th State Senate district, held in suburbs on the east side of San Francisco Bay. No Republicans ran in the primary, so two Democrats advanced to the general election. Steve Glazer, a campaign consultant by profession, faced Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, a liberal heavily backed by labor organizations.

Glazer bashed public employee unions, something otherwise unheard of in Democratic Party circles. The unions spent millions to undermine his campaign. Business and other Republican interests supported Glazer.

He won by 54-46 percent.

Maldonado’s original hope was that his “open” primary election scheme would result in more “moderate” candidates running for both parties. He got his wish—partially—in Glazer’s victory who is now identified as a foe of public employee unions. Along with the well-funded environmental lobby, they more-or-less control the state legislature.

Governor Jerry Brown, in his first gubernatorial incarnation (1975-79), gave public employee unions the right to collective bargaining. They have had a chokehold on the legislature ever since. Their work force keeps growing and overly generous pensions keep increasing public liability. If Glazer votes with Republicans on issues involving these unions, he may help slow this juggernaut, but not reverse it.

The upshot of two full cycles of the new “open” primary system is that parties are deprived of choosing their own candidates from among their registered members. One result: either party may forego backing a candidate in a district where it is certain to lose, thus saving campaign money. A downside of the new system is that it has turned the state parties into PACs rather than training grounds for candidates and the building of structures to support them.

A possible upside is that Glazer-like Democrats may run in more districts—candidates who favor economic growth and oppose public employee union domination.

One side effect: the new system further marginalizes “third” parties such as the Greens, Libertarians and Peace & Freedom. Prior to 2010 they were able to place candidates on the November ballot if they conducted a primary among their members. That is no longer possible and it is unlikely any will make the “top two” under the new rules.

Will this system spread to other states? Perhaps, but be aware it is no unmixed blessing.
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Who took Moldova’s millions — the crooks or the Kremlin?

◼ Economic turmoil strengthens the likelihood of Russian intervention - Peter Hannaford/Washington Times Monday, May 25, 2015

On the eve of a national election in tiny Moldova last November, $450 million — equal to 10 percent of the Eastern European country’s entire annual gross domestic product — went missing. So far, no one knows where it went.

Much was at stake in the election. Last June, Moldova’s pro-Europe government signed an association agreement with the European Union. Pro-Russia opponents favored partnership with Moscow’s Eurasian Economic Union instead. The incumbents barely won. Moscow signaled its displeasure with the EU agreement by placing an embargo on the import of Moldovan fruits, vegetables and wine.

Earlier this month, approximately 10,000 Moldovans marched in the streets of the capital, Chisinau, shouting, “Down with the thieves!” and “We want the billions back!” KEEP READING
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , , ,

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Getting It Wrong in Britain, as Cameron Rocks

◼ The lesson for the next five years: Don’t underestimate him. - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator 5.15.15

Who got it wrong in last week’s British election? The pollsters did, consistently concluding it was too close to call. The news media did—both there and here— by dutifully repeating the same message and predicting it would result in a shaky coalition of parties. Labour got it wrong by promising to take the United Kingdom backward. Only the Conservatives got it right: they won an outright majority of seats in the House of Commons.

Now, Prime Minister David Cameron has another five-year mandate, having promised “renewal” after a period of austerity. In the campaign he promised he would appoint women to a third of the cabinet, and he has. The cabinet has several members who will provide a strong talent bench for the future.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives’ coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, were reduced to a shadow of their former representation in Parliament and their leader resigned. So did Ed Milliband, the leader of the Labour Party.

Labour’s one piece of business now is to find someone who will take his place and replace his yesteryear message with something more closely reassembling the years of Tony Blair: pro-business, and pro-growth.

One astute observer, a veteran of both British politics and government, pointed out the polls got it wrong because they did not separate “haven’t decided” voters from “I don’t know” ones (a different breed). He said, “The ‘haven’t decideds’ had decided a long time ago, but were not saying so because they were either disaffected Tories who had been flirting with the United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) or left-center people who had written off Ed Milliband. They did not want to be bestirred by canvassers.”

Having incorrectly predicted the election outcome, the news media then stroked their collective chins and wrote that Cameron might well be the last prime minister of a United Kingdom. Why? Two reasons: the muscular victory in Scotland for the Scottish National Party and the possibility that a promised plebiscite on membership in the European Union might result in the country’s withdrawal from it.

As to the first, much was made of the SNP’s performance, sweeping 56 of 59 Scottish seats in the House of Commons—at the expense of Labour which had a firm grip on them for years. (The Conservatives held on to their one seat, and their member has been named Secretary of State for Scottish Affairs.).

Without a moment’s reflection, the media concluded that the SNP would demand more autonomy for Scotland and, if they did not get it, would mount another referendum to secede. Forgotten was the fact that they mounted a huge campaign for independence last year and were defeated by Scottish voters, 55-45 percent.

Also, close observers note, most of the new MPs from Scotland have no idea of how House of Commons procedures work and will have to learn them. Their delegation makes up only eight percent of the total membership of Commons. They will be treated fairly by the leadership, but without deference. And, once they are assigned to bill committees and select committees, they will have their hands full grappling with procedural details. Like elections here, what looks to be a rosy election aftermath is more likely to be a chastening experience. Don’t look for another Scottish independence referendum any time soon.

As for the EU plebiscite, Cameron has long promised it midway through a new term, with plenty of time in between to negotiate reforms in the UK’s arrangements with the organization. UKIP was founded on the idea of withdrawal from the EU. That party is still alive, but gasping for breath.

Note to the news media: Don’t underestimate Cameron again.
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

WANTED: ALICE MILLER

◼ When a federal bureaucrat is a bigger menace than a big government regulation. - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator 5.11.15

Who is Alice Miller and what’s she wanted for? She is a Washington bureaucrat and, no, she is not wanted for breaking a federal statute. Rather, she misinterpreted a regulation and, in the process, nullified the laws of two states.

She used the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (passed by Congress and signed by then-President Clinton), which requires state governments to allow a person to automatically register to vote when applying for a driver’s license or social services.

The law requires states to use a registration form designed by a federal office called the Election Assistance Commission; however, states may petition the commission to revise the form to include state qualification laws. Laws in both Kansas and Arizona require registrants to show that they are U.S. citizens in order to qualify to vote. The Obama administration does not like voter qualifications and, presumably, Alice Miller doesn’t either. Her title is “Acting Director” of the Election Assistance Commission. She refused to reprint the forms for Kansas and Arizona to conform to state law, as both had requested.

Alice Miller’s action would have gone unnoticed had it not been for an item published in PJ Media by J. Christian Adams. No doubt she would have preferred anonymity.

Was she even authorized to take such an action? Probably not. She was named “Acting Director” in a “line of succession” document written by the commission’s general counsel who was, at the time, himself, the Acting Director. His “line of succession” document was never voted on by the members of the commission, thus lacked authority. Hence Ms. Miller’s action became an unprecedented policy decision supported by Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice.

Prior to her role as “Acting Director,” Ms. Miller was a garden-variety bureaucrat at the commission. Before joining it she had been the staff lawyer for the District of Columbia’s Board of Elections and Ethics. That office oversaw D.C. elections. In that job, she once said that elections should be run with a more “‘holistic’ approach to ensuring that elections are usable, secure and reliable.” “Holistic” is a made-up word meaning, “relating to or concerned with wholes.” In this case, her refusal to adjust the forms for Kansas and Arizona means those forms definitely are not “holistic.” So much for consistency.

The two states promptly sued. A federal court sided with them, ordering the EAC to reprint the forms with the corrections in them. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed this and held that Alice Miller did have the power to deny new forms to the two states.

Now, the states have asked the Supreme Court to take the case. The Public Interest Legal Foundation and the American Civil Rights Union (not to be confused with the American Civil Liberties Union) have filed an amicus brief in support of the Kansas and Arizona case.

An underlying problem here is that Congress passes laws without many specifics, leaving it to federal bureaucrats to write (and enforce) regulations that activate the laws. The Federal Code of Regulations now comprises 175,000 pages. As Charles Murray puts it in his new book By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, “let’s withhold compliance with regulations that are pointless, stupid and tyrannical.” Good idea. Alas, it won’t work in this case, where it is a tyrannical bureaucrat, not the regulation, that has caused an unnecessary problem.
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

The Manufactured Drought

◼ Sacramento and Jerry Brown have hurt California’s Central Valley a lot more than nature has. - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator 4.20.15

California is in the third or fourth year of a drought. It is not the first one. There was one in the early ’90s that lasted about the same length of time.

Restrictions were placed on watering lawns, washing cars and so forth, but that was before Climate Change had been invented, so people took it in stride and, in time, the rains came again.

This year’s drought drew national attention when governor Jerry Brown called for a 25 percent reduction statewide in water use. Alas, the drought is unevenly distributed. On the north coast, rainfall is close to normal and there is enough water stored not only for this year, but also for another year or two. Where there is not enough water storage—and it is aggravating the effects of the drought—is the state’s great Central Valley.

There has not been a new reservoir built as part of the statewide system in 35 years, thanks to the organized opposition of environmental zealots who claim that dams prevent salmon and trout from spawning. That is a diversionary argument. No dams means a reduction in economic activity such as agriculture. This is a goal the environmental zealots pursue non-stop.

These facts have escaped chin-stroking media pundits in comfortable perches in New York and Washington who have been proclaiming that agriculture has been exempted from the 25 percent usage cut and that’s not fair. A little research would have told them that since 2009 the government has diverted 300 million gallons of water from agriculture in order to make the world safe for a two-inch fish, the Delta smelt.

The Natural Resources Defense Council had filed a lawsuit using the Endangered Species Act to accomplish this feat. A federal judge ruled in its favor. Since then, nearly half-a-million acres of crops have been abandoned due to lack of water. Several thousand jobs have been lost along with them.

Decades ago, long before the great growth of population in the south of the state, there was enough spring runoff from the snow pack in the northern mountains to provide agriculture with water and to flush the river delta system leading into San Francisco Bay, keeping salt water out and protecting the spawning grounds of salmon. The demand for water in the south grew and grew, as did agriculture until California became the nation’s biggest producer of agricultural revenue. Farmers grow a range of cash crops such as olives, avocados, almonds, lettuce, and kiwi fruit.

The reality of today’s California is that a delicate balance needs to be struck between keeping the river deltas free of salt water along with providing water for agriculture.

Yet the only way to save the Delta smelt, the environmentalists argued, is to keep the water from going to the farmers. At the same time they won’t hear of any plans to increase the number of upstream reservoirs so that there would be sufficient water from “wet” years for farmers, homeowners, and, yes, Delta smelt in dry ones.

Governor Brown’s one-size-fits-all mandate of 25 percent reduction in water use will not produce large amounts of water. More importantly, it does nothing to eliminate made-in-Sacramento droughts.
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 11, 2015

FRONT LINES IN THE MARIJUANA WAR

◼ How would legalization impact California’s Emerald Triangle? - Peter Hannaford 4.6.15

Last November District of Columbia citizens voted to legalize recreational use of marijuana, joining those of Colorado, Washington state, and Alaska. Since then debate continues about where and when it’s okay to ingest the weed, how to regulate and tax it, and the moral implications of approving use of a drug that is illegal under federal law.

In the District it’s a war of words. In California, many of the combatants are armed and dangerous. Statewide, the forces for legalizing marijuana have teams armed with clipboards and pens to gather signatures to put the issue on the 2016 ballot. They also take every opportunity to proclaim the certainty of victory. A similar proposition was defeated four years ago, but most national polls now show a majority of Americans favor legalization. Whether they actually favor it or are merely inured to it, the polls do not tell us.

In northwestern California the daily war is intense and fought on three fronts. This is the the Emerald Triangle—Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity counties—where, aficionados say, some of the world’s best marijuana is grown.

One front consists of streets and highways. The daily newspaper in the area’s largest city, Eureka, regularly reports routine traffic stops that turn up quantities of marijuana packaged for sale. As often as not, the driver is wanted for a parole violation.

The latest haul was bizarre. Two police detectives were crossing the parking lot of the area’s largest shopping mall when they spotted two suspicious vehicles and investigated. The vehicles contained a mobile lab for converting marijuana into hashish. The driver on hand had a knife and handgun. The lab on wheels contained processed marijuana as well as cans of butane, honey oil, and equipment with which to make hashish.

A second front involves several area law enforcement agencies that collaborate in raiding drug houses. Almost without exception, the raids yield marijuana plus assorted combinations of crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin. Along with these are ledgers of customer names and transactions, cash, and weapons.

The confiscated drugs are destroyed and the cash forfeited to help offset the costs of law enforcement.

One term, probably uncommon outside the Emerald Triangle, is “home invasion.” It is common in places where marijuana is approved for limited use and where there is a big black market, such as this one.

“Home invasion” occurs when a deal goes bad. Either the seller is demanding payment, or a buyer is demanding promised product for money paid. In either case the “victim” brings along a friend or two (with weapons) and they force their way in to collect. Sometimes the invaders are beaten off; sometimes those they call on are injured; sometimes the invaders cart off other property to make up for whatever they came to collect.

The third front in the war is fought on a much larger scale: marijuana plantations. Several times a month, the drug task force raids a suspected illegal growing operation and seizes the plants there. These are not helter-skelter affairs. Most are in remote areas, some involve greenhouses, most have bulldozed new roads, diverted natural streams (disrupting fish spawning), and laced the ground with rodenticides that kill other wildlife.

It is not uncommon for a raided “grow” to yield as many as 10,000 plants. The plantations are staffed by workers from many parts of the world, many of them lacking papers.

Legal growers are filled with anxiety about what will happen to them if and when marijuana is legalized. These are the growers who supply people with have “215” cards permitting them to use marijuana for medical purposes. They can grow their own, or buy them from a certified grower or dispensary.

Growers, legal and illegal, agree that cannabis is big business in their part of the world. In 2011, a University of Washington study Jennifer Budwig estimated that marijuana counts for 26 percent of the annual $1.6 billion economy of Humboldt County alone.

Once it is legalized, the legal growers argue, big corporations will swoop in to dominate the market; illegal growers will continue to supply a black market, and the legal growers will be squeezed out. All this reminds one of the old maxim, “Be wary of what you wish for."
__________________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 4, 2015

SEIZE THE HIGH GROUND FOR 2016

◼ This should be automatic for Republicans, given their party’s record and beliefs. - Peter Hannaford/American Spectator 4.3.15

March 7 marked 50 years since 1965’s “Bloody Sunday,” when millions watched on television as state and local police fired tear gas at the crowd and attacked marchers in Selma, Alabama. The national outrage that followed led to a speech by President Lyndon Johnson to a joint meeting of Congress — appealing for Voting Rights legislation. On March 17, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen introduced the bill.

Although the Democrats held two-thirds of the seats in both houses, these events gave it the momentum to pass, for Republican votes would counterbalance the worry that segregationist Southern Democrats would vote against it.

The bill passed and was signed into law on August 6 by President Johnson.

Forgotten by many, this followed in the tradition of Republicans pushing through the passage of the constitutional amendments —the 13th, 14th, and 15th — between 1865 and 1870 that outlawed slavery, clarified and protected citizenship rights, and prohibited denial of voting “on the basis of race, or previous condition of servitude.”

Alas, 50 years after “Bloody Sunday and 145 to 150 after passage of those three historic amendments, race relations are getting worse. Last month, the Justice Department released a report that the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department had systematically abused its power. There were two facts in the report that stunned Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart. He wrote:

What DOJ found made me ill. [Officer] Wilson knew about the theft of the cigarillos from the convenience store and had a description of the suspects. [Suspect] Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. And the popular hands-up storyline, which isn’t corroborated by ballistic and DNA evidence and multiple witness statements, was perpetuated by Witness 101. In fact, just about everything said to the media by Witness 101, whom we all know as Dorian Johnson, the friend with Brown that day, was not supported by the evidence and other witness statements.

In response, many sounded off on Facebook and Twitter slamming Capehart, an African-American, as “a sellout.” The usual race hustlers sounded off, encouraging unrest. An underlying theme was that conservatives generally and Republicans, in particular, are racist.

As 2016 comes closer, some Democrat operatives will drum away at that sub rosa theme. Calumny was used effectively to undermine Mitt Romney in 2012, particularly that he was hard-hearted (he manifestly was not). Many voters are uncomfortable with the idea of voting for candidates who have been demonized as racist, sexist, or uncaring.

If the Republicans are to gain and keep the high ground and win in 2016 they need to seize the initiative now.

A good way to do so is to a pass a new coverage formula for Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Two years ago, the Supreme Court declared that section unconstitutional in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) on grounds that the formula was outdated.

Section 4(b) covers any state or local government where 50 percent of eligible voters were not registered to vote or did not vote in the 1964 presidential election. In essence, it can used to fight discrimination both intentional or coincidental.

The bill was reauthorized in 1970 and 1975 to include results of the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections; however, there was no updated formula when it was reauthorized in 1982 and 2006. A new coverage formula—sponsored by Republicans in both houses—would require that any state or local jurisdiction that does not have 50 percent voter registration and/or 50 percent voter turnout in any election from 2012 forward will be subject to pre-clearance.

The Supreme Court did not invalidate any other part of the act, so there is nothing to stop Congress from passing an updated Section 4(b) formula. It would be in the great tradition of the Republican Party to stand tall for protecting full rights for all.

Passage of a new Section 4(b) formula would not only uphold that tradition, but also deprive race hustlers such as Al Sharpton from claiming that nothing is being done about racial discrimination. Then, every Republican candidate in 2016 can make it clear to his/her constituents just who is taking action to write “finis” to discrimination.
_______________

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Reagan for a number of years. He is a member of the board of the Committee on the Present Danger. His latest book is ◼ “Presidential Retreats.”
at Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)