Author: Jim

America’s Twilight Zones

On Friday I lamented the picking up, by local police, of two children, 10 and 6, for walking home from a local park . . .

and the subsequent two-month Montgomery County (Maryland) Child Protective Services investigation, which found the parents “responsible” for “unsubstantiated child neglect.”

Left unanswered? Whether parents “may” let their kids walk somewhere without supervision.

There’s no law, of course, against children walking in public without parents. But the “swarms of Officers” employed “to harass our people” aren’t limited by trifling things like laws.

This Kafkaesque episode reminds me of my experiences with campaign finance agencies.

In both cases, agencies rely upon meritless complaints to investigate, intimidate and impoverish people without any law being broken. All that’s required? An unelected bureaucrat’s arbitrary decision.

Take Lois Lerner. She ran the IRS division targeting conservative groups. Remember her allegedly lost emails? Irretrievable! Until someone actually looked for them.

Before violating people’s rights at the IRS, Lerner did so heading the Enforcement Division of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). A recent George Will column detailed her threats and very public and politically damaging harassment of Al Salvi, the Illinois Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. Sure, he was fully acquitted in federal court . . . after his defeat.

Using a spurious complaint by former Rep. Mike Synar (D-Okla.), Lerner launched a political persecution against U.S. Term Limits, costing us nearly $100,000 in legal fees and much more in dislocated time and manpower.

Finding no evidence — there was none to find — the FEC finally closed the matter. But agency officials still issued a news release proclaiming that they believed we had violated the law.

An Oklahoma newspaper headline read, roughly, “National Term Limits Group Broke Law, Says FEC.”

Talk about “unsubstantiated.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags abuse, ballot access, courts, law, legal

Today

African Slavery In America…

Post author By Jim
Post date March 8, 2015
No Comments on African Slavery In America…

On March 8, 1775, “African Slavery In America,” the first known essay advocating the abolition of slavery in America, was published anonymously in the Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekly Advertiser. Thomas Paine is believed to be the author. The first anti-slavery society was formed in Philadelphia weeks after publication, and Paine was a founding member.

Exactly 120 years earlier, a court in Northampton County of the Virginia Colony ruled that John Casor, then working as an indentured servant to Robert Palmer, must be returned to Anthony Johnson as Johnson’s “lawful” slave for life. Ironically, Johnson was one of the original indentured servants brought to Jamestown, had completed his indenture to become a “free Negro” and the first African landowner in the colony. The case marked the first person of African descent to be legally-recognized as a lifelong slave in England’s North American colonies.

Tags racism, slavery

meme

An Argument in Favor of Term Limits

Post author By Jim
Post date March 6, 2015
No Comments on An Argument in Favor of Term Limits

“As a lobbyist, I was completely against term limits, and I know a lot of people are against term limits, and I was one of the leaders, because why? As a lobbyist, once you buy a congressional office, you don’t have to re-buy that office in six years, right?”

—JACK ABRAMOFF, Former Lobbyist and Convicted Felon

Shared ideas matter. Please pass this along to friends.

Get a high-resolution screensaver of this image. Click on the thumbnail picture below to open a large version that you can download.

Tags debate, meme, term limits

education and schooling folly nannyism

Well-Substantiated Insanity

Post author By Jim
Post date March 6, 2015
7 Comments on Well-Substantiated Insanity

In what sort of place are children taken from their parents, or parents investigated by the authorities with that in mind, because they allowed their 10- and 6-year-olds to walk to a park to play?

Not a forced 20-mile march across Death Valley, mind you, but a Saturday stroll of less than a mile under normal earth conditions.

What sort of place? These United States — Silver Spring, Maryland, to be specific.

That’s where Danielle and Alexander Meitiv’s two kids, Rafi and Dvora, were picked up by police, on their way home from a neighborhood park.

A two-month Montgomery County Child Protective Services (MCCPS) investigation followed. Now, there’s no law against youngsters walking in public by themselves. Local public schools don’t provide bus service for kids within a mile of the school, deeming that close enough to walk. Nevertheless, this week, authorities announced that the Meitivs were “found responsible” for “unsubstantiated child neglect.”

The good news is that the neglect charge is completely “unsubstantiated.” The bad news is that official “Free State” busybodies seem to have not one clue as to what that word means.

MCCPS will keep a file on the suspicious family for five years. “We don’t know if we will get caught in this Kafkaesque loop again,” says Mrs. Meitiv, noting that the agency left unanswered the question of what might happen if they ever again dare allow their kids to walk outside the house without adult supervision.

The family is appealing the nonsensical MCCPS “finding.” In the meantime, the Meitiv children will continue to walk in public as if it’s a free country.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags children, nanny, nannyism, school

crime and punishment folly judiciary

Contemptible Court

Judge Tim Grendell missed his calling. Given his dictatorial impulses, he should have been a Soviet commissar or ancient Egyptian vizier. O, but for time, and place, and the mismatches of metempsychosis!

Grendell has lashed out punitively at Nancy McArthur, chairman of the Geauga County (Ohio) Republican Party, for seeking to undermine his authority with “vile” criticism. What happened? Did she interrupt courtroom proceedings with her aspersion-casting? Shout obloquy as he sought to instruct a jury?

Nothing like that. McArthur was never in Grendell’s court.

She did badmouth the judge, however . . . in private conversation.

The person McArthur was talking to is involved in a case presided over by Grendell, and, in a private email, reported on McArthur’s comments. Grendell, somehow, got hold of that email.

His response? Slap a subpoena on McArthur, demanding that she show cause why she should not “be held in Contempt of Court for making vile, contemptuous, slanderous, and insulting language directed at the Judge which reflects negatively on the integrity of the Court and impedes the Court in the administration of justice. . . .”

Yikes. McArthur was actually threatened with incarceration for speaking of this judge as if he were the type to do the sort of thing he did. Fortunately, his attempt to hold her in contempt has been blocked by an appellate court.

This isn’t the first time Grendell’s judicial reach has exceeded his ethical and constitutional grasp. Guilty of outrageous malpractice, he deserves a boot — to his rear, ejecting him from the bench.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags courts, judge, law, misconduct

Common Sense general freedom nannyism responsibility

Millions to Move 400 Villagers

Post author By Jim
Post date March 4, 2015
1 Comment on Millions to Move 400 Villagers

Apparently, it takes a federal government to move a village.

Thinning ice sheets have made it hard for the people of Kivalina, a seaside village in Alaska, north of the Arctic Circle. The Iñupiats who live there have lived off the sea, especially bowhead whales, for a mighty long time. And climate change, town officials say, has raised havoc with their traditional occupation.

Worse yet, the federal government suspects that soon Kivalina will become uninhabitable. “The question now facing the town, the state of Alaska, and the nation,” Chris Mooney writes in the Washington Post, “is whether to move the people of Kivalina to a safer location nearby, either inland or further down the coast — and who would pay upwards of a hundred million dollars to do it.”

If you look at the sandbar upon which Kivalina rests, you can see why it might be subject to erosion and the vagaries of the weather.

But does that make it a government concern? Really?

In times past, it wasn’t up to taxpayers to guarantee every outpost of humanity’s continued existence. When a way of life became untenable in a given place, the people moved.

Now, folks tend to look to governments, seeing their “communities” as something others owe them, rather than something they must work to keep.

A bad sign if climate change proves real and massive.

If it takes over a $100 million to move a village with 400 people, what happens when whole cities must be abandoned? I’m sure government will be involved, but if a million Americans must move, we cannot afford to spend the Kivalina ratio: $250 trillion is quite a price tag.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags global climate catastrophism, global warming

folly general freedom national politics & policies too much government

Non-neutral Net Neutrality

Post author By Jim
Post date March 3, 2015
No Comments on Non-neutral Net Neutrality

Worried about its costs, Netflix has asked millions of customers to support so-called “net neutrality” policies to curtail the freedom of action of broadband companies like Comcast. Netflix, a huge suck of bandwidth, doesn’t want to have to make deals with ISPs like Comcast to deliver service to its customers.

One goal of “net neutrality” is to prevent Internet providers from affecting Internet access via such nefarious practices as charging different rates for different levels of service (a ubiquitous form of “discrimination” without which markets cannot function). Mises Institute writer Ryan McMaken wants to know what problem the new regulations are supposed to solve: “Who is being denied access to the web?”

Since the Internet first became generally available, it has become only more widespread, service only faster.

Any problems caused by existing government barriers to entry should be solved by dismantling those barriers. But according to FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, the voluminous new regulations go in the opposite direction, giving the agency “power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.”

The FCC has voted to proceed with the regulations. The result will likely throttle the quality of broadband service.

Netflix and other advocates of the regime have also foot-shootingly increased the chances of intrusive new regulations of their own net-based businesses.

Any sweeping assault on our liberty is hardly “neutral.” Regulations like those proposed always favor some over others, the essence of partiality. What we need from government is not “neutrality” with respect to our freedom, but consistent upholding of our right to it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags control, economics, Internet, Net Neutrality, price controls, regulation

general freedom meme

What one man cannot morally do…

Post author By Jim
Post date March 3, 2015
No Comments on What one man cannot morally do…

“We hold that what one man cannot morally do, a million men cannot morally do, and government, representing many millions of men, cannot do.”

—ALBERT JAY NOCK

Shared ideas matter. Please pass this along to friends.

Get a high-resolution screensaver of this image. Click on the thumbnail picture below to open a large version that you can download.

Tags albert jay nock, government, meme, morality, nock

general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies too much government

Marriage Savings

Paul Jacob on how governments can save money, and clean up the marriage business, too

We’ve all seen lawmakers yammer on and on about how they want to “streamline” government, or “save the taxpayers money.”

But they rarely show us much for all the talk.

Paul Woolverton, writing this weekend in the Fayetteville Observer, noted one such lapse after the North Carolina Senate voted to create a law to let magistrates “opt out of conducting any weddings if they have a religious objection.”

The problem? “No one in the debate,” Mr. Woolverton asserts, “questioned the underlying premise that a magistrate or clergy member is necessary to seal the marriage contract.”

The involvement of the state in the marriage contract biz is unnecessarily complicated, he explains. “As fiscal conservatives,” Woolverton insists, they could have taken the opportunity to ask something more fundamental:

A man and a woman pay the government $60 to get a government-approved marriage license. Why should they then have to visit another government office and pay the government another $20, or hire a government-designated third party for a fee or “donation,” to finalize their marriage contract?

Woolverton suggests streamlining the process: “. . . [G]overnment should make its involvement the least intrusive it can be. It should record marriages when couples visit the Register of Deeds to buy their marriage licenses.”

And that’s it.

Betrothed couples can legally testify to meeting any and all state requirements — and officially inform the state of their pre-marriage and married names.

Those who want the services of a priest or rabbi or preacher or imam can hire one, or cajole one. Or two.

That’s just not state business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF