Categories
government transparency ideological culture national politics & policies

Die, DEI, Die!

Banning DEI doesn’t necessarily end DEI. 

So-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies mandate guilt-inducing collectivist indoctrination about race and sex and/or impose race and sex quotas. The Texas legislature rightly concluded that DEI indoctrination is pernicious and required that it be removed from public universities in the state.

Suspecting that the law would not be obeyed with perfect grace, the organization Accuracy in Media (AIM) has been doing undercover work to gather evidence on whether university staffers formerly determined to propagandize for DEI and impose DEI-based requirements are now backing off.

Many are not.

Two of the renegades recently caught on video:

“Rest assured, the work that we do is still the same. It’s just classified differently,” bragged Melissa Cruz, an academic recruiter at the University of Texas at Arlington at the time the AIM investigator talked to her. “The intention is still the same. The research is still the same. The practice is still the same. It’s just called something different now. Our job is to push back and to cause some good trouble and all of those things.”

At the University of North Texas, Paige Falco, gave the same explanation. “Our class might be titled something a little different to just not specifically have DEI as the class name,” she told the AIM investigator. “But it’s still an element that’s taught. It’s definitely still a focus.”

These two have been fired. 

Thankfully.

But while these two were caught in the sting, many more no doubt exist, breaking the law of the state that employs them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment government transparency partisanship

Open Secret Re-opened

Sometimes the news, hot off the press, turns out to be re-heated leftovers. But while some foods should not be re-cooked, the latest declassification appears worth a second feast.

The “new” news is historic: “The FBI said Monday night that it is ‘closely’ reviewing newly declassified memos,” reports John Solomon at Just the News. The declassified material shows that “the intelligence community kept secret for years evidence raising questions about the credibility and bias of the main accuser in President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment case.”

The CIA analyst who posed as a “whistleblower” about Trump’s controversial phone call asking that the Ukraine government look into Biden family corruption in the country was a Biden supporter. Deep blue. A known hater of Trump.

He was also a friend of “fired FBI Director James Comey and [Peter] Strzok,” the latter notorious from his work during the heady days of the Russiagate biz.

The analyst’s name is redacted in the newly declassified documents, but, Solomon notes, other media outlets identify him as “Eric Ciaramella.” 

Why does that name seem familiar? Because Ciaramella’s identity has been an open secret for over half a decade, at least since October 2019

Though the name was unsuccessfully protected by Adam Schiff, now a U.S. Senator from California,  the biggest secret was his partisanship, and the weakness of his evidence, both “kept from Trump’s impeachment proceedings by ex-Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Monday. 

“Gabbard accused the former watchdog of ‘weaponizing’ the whistle-blower process to hurt Trump.”

Not exactly shocking. 

Which the ever-increasing ranks of Trump critics may now regret. How many times can they impeach the same president? 

At some point a Never Cry Wolf element comes into play.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
government transparency partisanship representation

#ThemToo Movement

No matter how partisan politics has become, there are a few issues that our politicians seem intent on supporting — or opposing — regardless of party.

Example? Consider how soundly the House scuttled the recent effort to bring transparency to taxpayer payoffs for representatives’ and senators’ sexual harassment, rapes, and other improprieties. 

Last Wednesday, 357 members of the House of Representatives voted to refer to a committee a resolution that would have forced the release of records related to sexual harassment claims against lawmakers. While that sounds innocuous, in this case it effectively killed the measure. That’s how Representative Thomas Massie (R-Tenn.) explained it, and that’s how it was reported in the news: everyone who voted to refer the resolution to committee knew they were sending it to die.

“Both parties colluded to protect predators,” lamented Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who had introduced the resolution. “They voted to keep sexual harassment records buried, and they did it together.”

How together? Well the 357 members who protected their comrades from the ire of their constituents included 175 Republicans and 182 Democrats. Remember that there are currently 218 Republicans serving in Congress and 213 Democrats (with three vacancies and no independent representation). Nine members did not vote, while one answered as merely “present.” 

The uncooperative Republicans (willing to stab members of their own party in the back!) numbered thirty-eight, while recalcitrant Democrats (cruelly eager to shine sunlight on their fellow vampires!) numbered twenty-seven. 

While the House overwhelmingly voted to protect its members from transparency and their own voters, back on November 18, 2025, representatives voted 427-1 to demand the immediate release of all federal documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. 

Even more bipartisan. But that time it was for transparency.

Just not theirs.

This is key.

And this is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment government transparency subsidy

Learing in Minnesota

These days, we are apt to see the “meme” (joke) about the news before the news itself.

Take “Learing.” If you haven’t seen Nick Shirley’s YouTube video blowing the lid off what has quickly become the biggest fraud story of our time, you may not get the joke.

Some 30 days ago, my “Red-Flagged Welfare Fraud” decried “the more than $1 billion in fraud” conducted mostly by Somalis in Minnesota, taking taxpayer money and siphoning it off for personal and perhaps even terrorist benefit. Two weeks later, a weekend update — “Walz Waltzes, Spins” — discussed the Governor of Minnesota’s lame attempts to seem “in charge.”

Now, the fraud total is estimated to be over nine billion!

A new element of the story is young Mr. Shirley’s reporting. He went to “day care centers” all over Minneapolis, confronting “workers” and noticing there were no children actually being fed or taught. These were sham programs. 

In a partly funny moment, he appeared in front of one alleged day care that had misspelled its own name on the building’s sign: “Quality Learing Center.” 

A whole lot of folks on X — but not on BlueSky — thought this was funny-haha. 

The rest of us shake our heads. It may not even be funny-peculiar, as inquiries into more states have begun, with Washington and Ohio receiving the most attention so far.

We’ll need more Nick Shirleys to cover it all, for the mainstream press has shown . . . some reluctance to put in much elbow grease.

Meanwhile, there is a silver lining, expressed last night on Hannity by Terry Schilling of the American Principles Project: “It actually kind of makes me relieved that there were no children in these obviously corrupt and probably dangerous daycare facilities.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
government transparency ideological culture

That Non-Science Stink

Not long ago we were screamed at: “Trust the Science!”

So those of us paying attention came to distrust the scientists.

Especially “scientists” in positions of political power.

Sadly, tragically, more than one scientific discipline has been perverted in shockingly non-scientific ways. A hidebound denialism about new data has crept in. Sure, it is about the money, but often we catch a whiff of ideology.

This is apparently the case regarding astronomy — about which Harvard astrophysicist Abraham “Avi” Loeb offered testimony on a recent podcast

In 2014, a meteorite (CNEOS 2014-01-08) splashed into the Pacific Ocean — too fast to be solar-system native, says the U.S. Space Command. Without investigating, a published paper dismissed the evidence, discouraging further inquiry; Avi Loeb, on the other hand, led a team to the site, producing evidence from the ocean floor as well as an actual research paper.

Loeb’s first paper on the current obsession, the third officially recognized interstellar object, 3I/ATLAS, was published only on the condition he took out his killer final sentence — about the possibility that the object might be technological in nature (as its anomalies suggested). 

Loeb appeased the editor . . .  and then wrote a whole new article on that unspeakable (alien tech) possibility — for another journal.

NASA’s also infected. After watching a recent press conference by NASA on 3I/ATLAS, Loeb argued it would have been better to have actual scientists field questions rather than feature NASA bigwigs dutifully reciting the currently acceptable (safe?) determination that the object is “just a comet.”

“The intellectual climate, right now in Academia, is such that any new knowledge is resisted by experts,” Dr. Loeb explains. 

That’s the opposite of science. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability government transparency national politics & policies

One Day an Audit?

“As U.S. debt soars and foreign central banks stockpile gold,” asserts a new article, “a U.S. senator today introduced a bill to require the first comprehensive audit of America’s gold reserves in decades.”

Reading the Mises Institute piece, I got a sense of déjà vu.

“Sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), the Gold Reserve Transparency Act would require a full assay, inventory, and audit of all United States gold holdings,” the author, Jp Cortez, explains, “along with an upgrade in the purity of the gold so that it meets global market standards.”

The “haven’t I read this before?” thought hit me hard. Talk of auditing the gold reserves is not new. Earlier this year, in the heady days of Elon Musk and DOGE, a lot of folks dared wonder: does the federal government even have any gold at all? 

I asked the question in February, in the context (I kid you not) of UFOs!

A “Gold Reserve Transparency Act” has been introduced four times in the House since 2011, always by Republican sponsors aligned with sound-money advocates. But it has also never passed the House, let alone advanced to the Senate or become law. 

The House Committee on Financial Services received these bills but only the 2011 version got so much as a hearing. 

No Senate version existed until Sen. Mike Lee’s introduction (S. __, 119th Congress) weeks ago, which mirrors the House bill and remains unnumbered and in committee as of yesterday.

A gold audit would be very interesting. But I get the feeling this will be treated like UFOs: full disclosure forever forthcoming.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with ChatGPT/NanoBanana/Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment government transparency privacy

Transparency, Weaponized

Transparency is usually a good thing. But so is privacy. And so, too, are limits on government power. 

Which bring me to the Epstein files — or, more accurately, those files bring me here. 

“I don’t think we’ve had a scandal like this in this country,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) offered yesterday on Meet the Press, “and what we’re asking for is justice for those survivors.” 

I want justice, too — that is, the prosecution of any crime grand juries honestly believe was likely committed. 

By anyone! No matter how powerful that suspect might be.

On the other hand, the Epstein File Transparency Act, which will be voted on this week in the U.S. House of Representatives and for which Khanna is a primary sponsor, “would require the Justice Department to declassify and release all files pertaining to the prosecution of the late sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein.”

The public has a right to know! 

But does it? 

And if so, does that ‘right’ mean we permit the federal Department of Justice to use prosecutorial power to grab incriminating evidence on “suspected criminals” and then weaponize and deploy that information not to prosecute a crime in a court of law, but rather to publicize the damaging dirt discovered in the court of public opinion?

From then-FBI Director James Comey’s ridiculous public preening over the non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton in 2016 to the demanded release of the Epstein files today, we must be careful the DOJ does not become an opposition research firm for the party in power, using badges and guns. Or the world’s most outrageous doxxing scheme.

Our criminal justice system should do one thing and only one thing: Prosecute crimes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
government transparency insider corruption national politics & policies

The Stick-to-it-iveness of the Deep State

“It is essential that we (CIA/NSA/FBI/ODNI) be on the same page and are all supportive of the report,” wrote former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, “in the highest tradition of ‘that’s OUR story, and we’re sticking to it.’ ”

Clapper wrote that in a recently declassified email from late 2016. It’s about RussiaGate, which his inter-departmental team had concocted out of Clinton oppo campaign research leading up to Donald Trump’s unexpected win that year.

“This is one project that has to be a team sport,” urged Clapper, expecting unity on his scheme to undermine Trump’s presidency.

While you and I may hope that saving the country isn’t mere sport to our leaders, we should learn from divulgations of this kind. They know what they’re doing, and are serious about it, even when “sticking to” an obviously nutty story.

Do you remember where that phrase came from?

On May 18, 1926, Aimee Semple McPherson vanished while swimming at Venice Beach, California. A massive search — involving divers, the Coast Guard, and a $25,000 reward — came up bupkis. But this media innovator and founder of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel reemerged five weeks later near the Mexican border, saying she had been abducted by three strangers, held captive in a desert shack, tortured, and forced to write ransom notes before her escape, walking 40 miles through wilderness. Her wild story quickly fell apart as evidence of a torrid affair was made public. But in response to relentless questioning from prosecutors, journalists, and skeptics during the following grand jury hearings and trials, the Pentecostal evangelist repeatedly affirmed her account, often uttering variations on what became an infamous theme: “This is my story, and I am sticking to it.”

James Clapper channeled that while orchestrating his much more serious public fraud. And he expects to get away with it, too, like “Sister Aimee” did, through bluster. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights government transparency ideological culture social media

Google Confesses All

Google is no longer silent about whether the Biden administration pushed Google to censor customers for their viewpoints. 

Under Biden, Google censored YouTube content creators under federal pressure, specifically about COVID-19. But Google did muzzle discourse on other matters, such as disputes about the legitimacy of the 2020 election, as a result of its own policies that it now says are “sunsetted” along with policies resulting from its submission to a rogue administration.

Its own role is important because we know that a tech giant can effectively resist federal pressure to censor on the basis of the principles of the company’s leaders.

The proof is how Twitter changed course while Biden or his autopen was still the president. Twitter revamped its policies after Elon Musk ascended to the helm, starting to welcome back those who had been censored under the previous owners.

Yes, Elon Musk found himself under assault from every direction from a variety of federal agencies; which, it seemed, were acting as if in concert with and at the behest of a foiled Biden administration. Musk’s opposition to censorship and documentation of administration pressure to censor was not risk-free.

Now Google is following suit. When restoring freedom of speech is lots less risky.

Let’s hope Google’s words now decrying censorship, and its still-in-progress efforts to make things right — inviting the return of former YouTubers whose channels it had censored, for example — will render the company less eager to cooperate when the next pro-censorship administration takes power.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment government transparency

The Case of the Phony Stats

One theme of The Wire, a series about the war on drugs in Baltimore, is the willingness of police department leaders to fake crime statistics.

Despite a few flights of fancy, the drama prided itself on its realism. It turns out that in reality, too, police department bosses may be willing to rewrite crime statistics so things don’t seem as bad as they are.

In Washington DC, a police sergeant, Charlotte Djossou, accused higher-up officers of repeatedly instructing lower-down officers to re-label everything from thefts to violent assaults as lesser offenses. All liberally confirmed by “[Metropolitan Police Department] emails, depositions, and phone call transcripts” seen by The Washington Free Beacon.

The MPD has now settled with Djossou, who sued the department in 2020 after it punished her for bringing the matter up.

One example that emerged in the legal proceedings is a 2022 deposition by Randy Griffen, an MPD commander. Griffen admits telling a police captain, Franklin Porter, to find “a solution for the theft problem, which was driving up the district’s statistics.” The solution was to recategorize instances of shoplifting and theft, now calling them “Taking Property Without Right” — “because TPWOR reports are not tracked in the DC Crime Report.”

The Free Beacon quotes extensively from court documents. Tweaking the crime stats was routine in DC for years.

The DC Police are not alone: other fictionalizers of crime statistics are known to have flourished in LA, NYC, New Orleans, and Columbus, Ohio.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts