Category: government transparency

The Turn-on-a-Dime’s Difference

Post author By Redactor
Post date November 18, 2022
4 Comments on The Turn-on-a-Dime’s Difference

UFO, UAP, unidentified flying object, government secrets

Over two out of five. The first articles I saw put the ratio at “nearly 50 percent,” but the percentage is, more accurately, “nearly 41.” What’s significant is we would expect that figure to be much, much lower.

I’m talking about UFOs. Or “UAP” — as it is now trendy to say. I’m going to stick with the old term, just to rub the long history of the subject into smug, refined noses.

The story is this: in an upcoming-any-day-now report to Congress on UFOs, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence claims that there were 366 military-reported Unidentified Aerial … er … Flying Objects, last year, and 150 of them remain unexplained and not likely to be explained, since they behaved extremely oddly. That is, they acted in classic “flying saucer” manner.

“The unexplained ones they just have no clue,” says Daily Mail reporter Josh Boswell, “because these things are moving in ways that we just don’t understand. At hypersonic speeds, and then they just turn on a dime. I mean, it’s incredible.”

The bad news is that it appears these things “exist.” The good news, one can hope, is that now the military has protocols in place to handle such reports rather than turn each UFO/pilot interaction into a case fraught with secrecy and suppression, fear and consternation. The UFO reports now go to the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office.

It is worth mentioning that many of the stories in this upcoming report toe the old government line, insisting that these sightings are in theory explainable as enemy drones, etc. If true, drone tech has made serious advances!

And the world is even more dangerous than previously thought.

Or weirder.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL‑E

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

First Amendment rights government transparency

Cough It All Up

The state attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana sued the Biden administration for censorship. Thanks to the lawsuit, we’re learning more and more about how federal officials have pressed Big Tech social media companies to muzzle users who dissent from the Official Narrative about the pandemic.

Much of the evidence coughed up as a result of the litigation has taken the form of email exchanges. An official might email a social-media rep something like: “We find this post disturbing. Can you do something about? Like maybe censor it?” The rep might double-quick reply: “Done! Anything else I can do today to secretly help the government circumvent the First Amendment?”

Certain officials have been particularly central in the saga, including eight persons that a judge is now letting plaintiffs depose: Anthony Fauci, former press secretary Jennifer Psaki, FBI agent Elvis Chan, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Carol Crawford of the CDC, Daniel Kimmage of the State Department, and a couple of others.

During her tenure Psaki spoke openly about the Biden administration’s demand for more censorship of “misinformation,” which is the new code word for disagreement. So it’ll be hard to deny that she said that stuff.

Crawford is in charge of the CDC’s digital media activities, activities that included regular meetings with staff of social-media companies.

Among other subjects, plaintiffs will be asking Anthony Fauci about an email exchange with Francis Collins discussing a “takedown” of the Great Barrington Declaration, which opposed lockdown policies.

I’m all ears.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL‑E

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags censorship, government, social media

Accountability government transparency insider corruption

Six Million Dimes

“EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak should not be getting a dime of taxpayer funds,” declared Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R‑Wash.), “until they are completely transparent. Period.”

Nevertheless, “despite losing a previous award for failing to provide records essential to an investigation into that origin,” Daszak’s group is now slated to receive $600,000, The Intercept informs us.

While regular readers are well aware of what Rep. Rodgers calls “madness,” at Unherd.com’s The Post, Ashley Rindsberg refreshes our memories:

“EcoHealth Alliance is … responsible for funneling … US government grants to the now infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology, considered by many to be the likely source of the pandemic.”
Still, “[Daszak] was the go-to source for the American media as they sought to ‘prove’ that the lab leak theory was little more than a Right-wing conspiracy. He also surreptitiously organised a letter in The Lancet, attempting to shut down the debate by labelling this potential origin as a ‘conspiracy theory.’”
“Most alarmingly,” Daszak “submitted a 2018 proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that called for scientists to insert a furin cleavage site — a key distinguishing and extremely rare feature of SARS-Cov‑2 — into SARS-like viruses. In other words: a blueprint for making SARS‑2 in a lab.”

Instead of throwing money at EcoHealth Alliance (which would merely funnel it to a Chinese lab), invest in a thorough congressional investigation into how Dr. Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance, and co-conspirator Dr. Anthony Fauci purposely obstructed the inquiry into the origin of a pandemic that has killed more than a million Americans and nearly seven million worldwide.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Created with DALL‑E

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags covid, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Peter Daszak

First Amendment rights general freedom government transparency political challengers

Pro Bono No Bueno

The twisty highways and byways of campaign finance regulation bring us to another strange pass.

The Texas Ethics Commission is considering whether to effectively ban pro bono legal work for candidates. The method? Mandate that such work be regarded as an in-kind contribution subject to campaign finance regulations.

David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, observes that most candidates “can’t afford to hire counsel and spend probably hundreds of thousands of dollars challenging the constitutionality of a law where the opinion may not come out until after the election.… Basically, the opinion would slam the courthouse door shut to candidates and most political committees.”

Campaign finance regulation has always meant curtailing speech and the activities that enable it and flow from it. This latest regulatory prospect is more of the same. As long as campaign finance regulation exists, there will always be obnoxious new ways to use it to hamper speech and action.

The commissioners, apparently seeing some merit in the pro-pro bono argument and therefore judging the issue at least worth mulling, have deferred their decision. It would have been far better to simply accept Keating’s objections and put an end to the proposed new crackdown then and there.

Meanwhile, Texans — especially potential candidates — must sit on the edge of their seats until the commission decides whether to make it prohibitively expensive to fend off unconstitutional assaults on candidates and campaigns.

Not unlike the unconstitutional assault exemplified by campaign finance regulation itself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL‑E

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags campaign finance reform, freedom, government

government transparency too much government

Last of the Big Spenders

The state government of California spends a lot of money. But how much and on what?

That information has, apparently, been a state secret.

Until now.

For years, a watchdog group called OpenTheBooks.com has been working to discover and disclose government spending in the United States. Its efforts were enabled by 2006 legislation sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn and Barack Obama to establish a website, USASpending.gov, that details federal expenditures. Until his death in 2020, Coburn was the honorary chairman of OpenTheBooks.com.

The group reports that in 2021, it filed some 47,000 Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain data on some $12 trillion of government spending. So they’ve been busy.

California is now the fiftieth state whose spending is being made public in detail.

The state had long resisted requests for info about its spending. State controller Betty Yee said that it was impossible to comply with such requests because California has no central database of government payments. Compiling the data would be too darn hard.

The auditors at OpenTheBooks.com performed the chore instead, filing requests for public records with each of 469 state-government entities.

According to founder and CEO Adam Andrzejewski, “It was a historic knockdown, drag-out dogfight that lasted a decade and spanned the last two California controllers. Since 2005, the state invested $1.1 billion in accounting software, yet still couldn’t publish a complete record of state spending.”

Various budgetary items will doubtless prove controversial — now that they are publicly known.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL‑E

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags California, FOIA, oversight, spending

government transparency too much government

Trudeauvian Tyranny

Discovery in a lawsuit brought against the Canadian Government has revealed that “Follow the Science” was a ruse.

When Trudeau’s administration announced, last year, a restrictive travel ban on all who refused to get “vaccinated” against COVID, the breathtaking nature of the political move (which was followed by a snap election) — and its sheer illiberality from a Liberal — may have overshadowed how little science was behind it.*

Of course, now that the vaccines have proven to be ineffective at stopping the disease, the medical rationale seems especially shaky. But, as Rupa Subramanya writes at Bari Weiss’s “Common Sense” Substack news page, “Court Documents Reveal Canada’s Travel Ban Had No Scientific Basis.”

Among the juicy revelations uncovered?

“No one in the COVID Recovery unit” — which Ms. Subramanya identifies as “the secretive government panel that crafted the mandate” — possessed any medical credentials or had undergone any significant medical training.

The impetus for the travel ban came from above, in Trudeau’s cabinet.

And, juicier yet, “leading up to the implementation of the travel mandate, transportation officials were frantically looking for a rationale for it. They came up short.”

Oddly, the COVID Recovery unit has no website, and is rarely mentioned in official documents.

The plaintiffs in the case that has brought the information to light are Karl Harrison and Shaun Rickard. Lawsuits are expensive, and some of the funds to bring the case forward were raised on GoFundMe. In February, following Trudeau’s crackdown on the Trucker protest, GoFundMe kicked Rickard off the site.

In mid-June, Canada lifted the travel bans. But threatened to re-introduce them as, er, needed.

What we have learned is that the “necessity” was always a political one.

The science was just not there.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Emails released recently by the United States’ Food and Drug Administration show a similar lack-of-science basis for high-level political requirements for dramatic “medical” responses to COVID.

PDF for printing

Art assist: craiyon

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts