Category: national politics & policies

Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies partisanship

Not This King?

imperial presidency, power, executive branch, Kings

“This is why more Americans today identify as an independent than a Republican or a Democrat for the first time in American history,” argued Sarah Isgur during a panel discussion on ABC’s This Week program, the day after another fatal shooting by ICE agents in Minnesota. “Because no one actually believes that either side believes what they’re saying.”

Isgur, a writer and podcaster for The Dispatch, has worked on both Democratic (2016) and Republican (2012) presidential campaigns and even landed a job at the Department of Justice during President Trump’s first term, only later to be fired. 

“Look, honestly,” Isgur continued, “if Barack Obama’s federal officers had killed a member of the Tea Party, who had shown up, who had a concealed-​carry permit, who was disarmed before he was shot, that [the protester was armed] would not be what the Right is saying.”

She went on: “And, frankly, the left was all for big executive power, as long as it was Joe Biden. They’re not ‘no kings.’ They just don’t like this king.”

Throughout President Donald Trump’s first term, I recall shouts that he had overstepped his authority under the law only to discover, oftentimes, that the power he was wielding had been bestowed upon our president by a feckless Congress. What I found even more disconcerting was that at no time did those complaining seek to limit these excessive presidential powers.

It appears, as Sarah Isgur suggested, that their concern was not with an imperial presidency, only with this current person as that imperial president.

“If you actually want to do something about the problems, both sides need to actually say, presidents shouldn’t have this power,” Isgur explained. “The federal government shouldn’t have this power.”

Wise government depends on limiting power … no matter who is president.

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
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Rebel in Eden?

environmentalism, hysteria, authoritarianism, Robert Bidinotto, individualism

The title of Robert Bidinotto’s bracing new collection, Rebel in Eden: The War Between Individualism and Environmentalism, may occasion objection to the word “environmentalism.”

Of course, if “environmentalism” pertained only to how best to reduce pollution and litter and so forth, who would have need to combat it? Freedom-​minded individualists, for example, would debate means, not ends.

But that’s not the kind of thing that the environmentalists themselves — or “radical environmentalists,” to distinguish them from people who manage cleanup crews — focus on.

Radical environmentalists regard humanity as a blight on the face of the earth; they regard nature as an end itself (an “intrinsic value”) that should be left alone regardless of the cost to that mere interloper, man. In their view, plants and animals have “rights,” men and women do not; mining is “raping” the earth — all documented here. 

These are issues that Bidinotto has been reporting on and analyzing since at least the early 1980s, in places like the On Principle and Intellectual Activist newsletters and Reader’s Digest. So this collection has been in the making for some forty years.

Some of the don’t‑miss essays: “Death by Environmentalism,” “The Great Pesticide Panic,” “Animal Rights: A New Species of Egalitarianism,” “Global Warming and the New Totalitarianism,” “California, Thank Environmentalism for Your Wildfires,” “Environmentalism or Individualism?” I might list the whole table of contents.

Take a look. Bidinotto, by the way, has also contributed a piece “On Courage” to our sister website, StoptheCCP​.org.

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
national politics & policies responsibility

On the Government’s Diet

MAHA, food, regulations, responsibility

One could argue that our dietary habits are something government shouldn’t be involved in. 

I do. But the federal government taxes, regulates, subsidizes, and researches for food production in these United States “bigly.” 

And then the government taxes, regulates, subsidizes and researches for medical interventions that mitigate the consequences of how we eat. 

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Brooke L. Rollins, the current secretaries of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), respectively, have signed their names to a new set of Dietary Guidelines for Americans — an interesting document. 

“The message is simple,” it says: “Eat real food.”

The fact that much of our food industry has been constructed in collaboration with the USDA makes this advice … piquant.

While Vitamin D intake was mentioned several times, I notice that the fact that our bodies produce Vitamin D when exposed to sunlight went undiscussed. Also unrecognized? That Vitamin D levels have been shown to be a key indicator of how well people fight off infections … like COVID.

Alcohol use is discouraged. Drinking “water (still or sparkling) and unsweetened beverages,” highly encouraged.

“Pay attention to portion sizes” is just common sense.

The advice to “increase protein consumption” ruffles some feathers, according to The Epoch Times’ coverage.

“Since the first edition was published in 1980, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans have provided science-​based advice on what to eat and drink to promote health, reduce risk of chronic disease, and meet nutrient needs,” explained the previous Guidelines. 

But how science-​based is all this, really? Seems “the Science” in the Guidelines changes with each innovation in political and economic pressure. 

Now and previously.

Most of all, however: Our diets remain our own responsibilities. 

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
national politics & policies scandal

Walz Won’t Run Cuz Trump Mean

Tim Walz, Minnesota, Somalia, scandal

Didja hear? Omigod. Minnesota’s Tim Walz, everyone’s favorite Failed Vice Presidential Candidate and sympathizer with the Chinese Communist Party, is not running for reelection — he no longer seeks to serve as one of the top three worst governors ever. 

In his whiny announcement, Governor Walz verged on apoplexy. “Those bumbling Somali fraudsters screwed everything up! The optics have gone to @#$%&!; citizen journalist, my  [insert alternative grawlix here]! And Trump is mean!” Look, if you don’t believe me, I’ll fax you the transcript.

OK. I may be paraphrasing. 

But I’m close. Associated Press reports his bitter comments on why the jig is up. Walz is waltzing out of the campaign because he can’t give it “my all” because of the “extraordinarily difficult year for our state” because of the latest revelations of how crappily and dishonestly he functioned as governor. 

Walz said: “Donald Trump and his allies — in Washington, in St. Paul, and online — want to make our state a colder, meaner place.” These baddies “want to poison our people against each other by attacking our neighbors … want to take away much of what makes Minnesota the best place in America to raise a family.”

All very elusively allusive. What could Senor Real Man possibly be talking about? Why would any Minnesotan — say, an honest taxpayer — want to attack another Minnesotan — say, someone living high off the hog on the taxpayer dime, effectively taking money from the mouths of babes? Or a dishonest politician cooperating with and benefiting from just such massive taxpayer-​funded fraud? 

Don’t run, Walz. Don’t run. Stay right where you are.

So that prosecutors can find you.

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
First Amendment rights media and media people national politics & policies too much government

Governing the News

FCC, censorship, covid, surveillance

“The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and ’70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press,” explained FCC commissioner Ajit Pai for the Wall Street Journal, in an op-​ed I quoted yesterday.

“The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing.…”

Thankfully, this is old news. The former FCC commissioner’spiece was actually published nearly twelve years ago. Mr. Pai has since moved on to the private sector, in April becoming President and CEO of CTIA, the wireless industry trade association.

We can breathe a sigh of relief. The FCC is not planning on regulating the news for biased content.

Well, supposedly, anyway. 

So why rehash an old issue — why revive something from the proverbial slush pile?

To compare and contrast. Bias is a continuing problem, but the biggest threat to news reporting and dissemination since that time has revealed itself in a very different form, not as “abridgments” to press freedoms but as secret government commands and direction.

Remember what we learned in the Trump-​and-​pandemic years?

During the recent pandemic, and the release of the Twitter Files, we learned of a massive effort of government and “ex-​government” personnel directing social media outlets to platform-​censor dissent, going so far as to squelch new sources … as happened regarding the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story.

The FCC Fairness Doctrine was nothing compared to the meddling that has more recently occurred behind the scenes, but which we all experienced, on social media. It played a role in the election results favoring Biden in 2020, and in the dysfunctional, disastrous public health response to COVID-19. 

The FCC doesn’t handle that level of biased manipulation of news.

So who does?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana and ChatGPT

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

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

The FCC’s Press Bias Fix

censorship, FCC, news, media, propaganda

You are operating a newsroom or, let’s say, a commentary room. Somebody accuses you of bias in how you decide what to publish.

You deflect: Of course different media organizations have different perspectives; each to its own. Sometimes, too, we choose what to run less rationally than the Platonic philosopher-​journalist would demand.

Bias is everywhere, inevitable.

Which makes the only cure maximal freedom of speech and openness of discourse. The answer to deficient speech is better speech, not either direct or indirect government censorship.

Nevertheless, the FCC has proposed to “investigate” the selection process of newsrooms.

Any such investigation is necessarily biased from the get-​go against freedom of speech and press. Even if it never gets to the regulation stage, the investigation itself constitutes interference. It is impossible for anyone being asked formal investigatory questions by the FCC to be unaware that the questioner has the power of government behind him.

How, for example, is a conscientious employee who respects the rights of his boss supposed to answer this loaded question: “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?”?

FCC commissioner Ajit Pai reports that this is one query being considered as part of a “Critical Information Needs” study to determine how stories are selected, “perceived bias,” and how responsive a newsroom is to “underserved populations.”

Pai, who opposes the project, says: “The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

Or not covering others.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana and Firefly

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

Categories
Accountability government transparency national politics & policies

One Day an Audit?

gold, audit, UFO

“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
defense & war national politics & policies

The War on Drugs War

Rand Paul, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, drug war, human rights

The Trump Administration is at war … with Senator Rand Paul. 

Tensions between the President and Senator Paul have heated up noticeably since mid-​October, with Trump taking sharp public swipes at Paul, a longtime ally. This scuffle seems primarily driven by Paul’s outspoken criticism of the Venezuelan boat strikes, which Trump sees as a betrayal of his “tough on drugs” agenda and a threat to GOP unity. 

The budget hawk angle — mentioned here in a weekend update — is a secondary irritant, tied to Paul’s broader push for fiscal restraint. But it hasn’t dominated the feud.

While Trump decries a lack of unity, Paul offers Trump’s bellicosity as “detrimental to the party.”

Against the Kentucky senator’s war-​powers/​war-​crimes critiques, the president is acerbic: “Rand wants trials for narco-​terrorists 2,000 miles away? Tell that to the fentanyl orphans.”

Tough zinger, sure, but think about it: it’s the standard argument against all civil liberties. The idea that those suspected by the government of awful crimes, even lacking any proof or semblance of due process, do not deserve rights. 

Leading to a modern adaptation of “Kill them all and let God sort them out” in the Carribean.

Meanwhile, in a bizarre reversal of the ongoing marijuana legalization and hemp deregulation trend, the federal government has “turned back the clock”: Tucked into the continuing resolution (CR) that ended the 43-​day government shutdown, Congress passed (and Mr. Trump signed) language that effectively bans most hemp-​derived products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container — a threshold so low it sweeps up even basic CBD items, which naturally contain trace THC.

Since Kentucky sports over 5000 acres devoted to the ancient industrial product, you might suspect that this could be part of Trump’s war on Kentucky’s junior senator.

But it appears the state’s senior senator was behind the move!

New War on Drugs, meet the old War on Drugs.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with NanoBanana and Firefly 

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

Categories
Accountability defense & war national politics & policies responsibility U.S. Constitution

The Irresponsible vs. The Unaccountable

war, law, Congress, military

Six Democrats in Congress — Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, U.S. Representatives Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania — caused quite a stir, recently, producing a video “to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community.” 

What did these former military and intelligence agency vets-​turned-​congressmen tell our current soldiers and spooks? 

“You can refuse illegal orders.”

While that’s true, and important … what orders are they talking about? 

Perhaps the continued bombing of ships in the Caribbean and killing of crews, all on accusations by the White House that these are drug smugglers — without any check or real accountability — is such a case.*

Yet, these powerful senators and representatives are not making it.

Instead, they’ve not even identified one breach. And by refusing to identify any of President Trump’s specific orders, their call devolves into second-​guessing the chain of command and encouraging dissension in the ranks, dissuading military personnel from always being “at the ready.”

Further, these wielders of legislative power in Washington have taken no serious action to protect the Constitution nor promoted any legislative action to hold executive action accountable. 

Instead, they pass the buck to the soldier (or CIA analyst) to determine the legality of orders on the fly.

As Haley Fuller wrote at Military​.com last week, “[A]sking individual service members to make on-​the-​spot legal judgments without guidance can put them at enormous personal risk.” 

Was this Democrat video “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” as Trump posted on social media? I don’t think so. 

It is, however, tragically emblematic of the complete and total abdication of responsibility by these pretend leaders in Congress. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Reminds me of President Obama’s policy of killing American citizens abroad by drone strikes without, as even he acknowledged, any real process of checks and accountability. Thank goodness for Sen. Rand Paul’s 2013 filibuster raising concerns about this unaccountable power to execute. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana and Firefly

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

Categories
ideological culture international affairs national politics & policies too much government

This Is What Businessman Rule Looks Like

Donald Trump

President Trump is doing something many of his supporters said they wanted him to do: act not like a normal politician but like a businessman, for Americans, as if we were stockholders in a for-​profit company.

Bring in the dough. Efficiently.

“Saudi Crown Prince Pledges $1 Trillion Investment in US During Meeting with Trump,” an article at The Epoch Times tells us. The Saudi potentate is boosting, the story runs, an “investment partnership with the United States from $600 billion,” and the prince in question, Mohammed bin Salman — his reputation previously sullied by the part he played in the gruesome assassination of a journalist —  explains that the “investments will focus on what he described as ‘real opportunities’ in areas such as artificial intelligence and magnets.”

The article notes that the “Saudi Foreign Ministry said in a Nov. 17 post on X that the crown prince, widely known as MBS, would meet Trump ‘to discuss bilateral relations, ways to strengthen them across various fields, and issues of mutual interest.’”

Now, that latter discussion of diplomatic issues appears normal. That is, what we expect two heads of state to do when conferring.

But all this talk of extra investment? Micromanaging foreign investment within the United States?

That’s never been the recipe for republican governance and can so easily and quickly devolve into plutocratic socialism-​for-​the-​rich. There’s no shouting “limited government” about what Trump boasts of regarding “the deals” he makes for the U.S. 

For “us.”

But it does fit what many had hoped he would be: a businessman taking charge of the corporation that is the unitary “United States.” A fix-​it man for the federal Leviathan.

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