Category: national politics & policies

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights national politics & policies

Prosecutorial Shell Game?

FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, 86, sea shells

The Department of Justice’s case against the egregious former head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, is as weak a case as he could hope.

Comey had shared an image on social media — a photo of shells on a beach gathered together to markout “86 47” — and, when people interpreted it as a possible threat, he deleted it. “He said he thought it was a political message, not a threat,” an NPR story summarizes, “but now a grand jury in North Carolina has made a federal case out of this. It’s charged Comey with two felonies, including allegedly threatening the life of the president.”

So why do I call it weak? While “86” may have originally meant “kill” or “delete,” amongst gangsters, real or Hollywood, it’s often used colloquially to mean “get rid of.” And though “47” is the number of Trump’s second administration, it’s possible — indeed likely — that Comey didn’t mean “Kill Trump.” He could have meant “impeach Trump” or “prosecute Trump” or any other politically acceptable way to force the president out of office. 

Don’t get me wrong. Was it a dumb thing for the disgraced former government official to share? Sure. But even outstandingly horrible former FBI heads have freedom of silly speech.

This is not the first time Comey’s been prosecuted by the Trump DOJ. The last time it fizzled. And, considering the First Amendment, this one will fizzle.

Bringing forward dumb charges looks bad, like Democrats looked prosecuting Trump. The political persecution of enemies is not all that popular. 

And in a country filled with political corruption, it sets the cause of “draining the swamp” back, not forward.

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
government transparency ideological culture national politics & policies

Die, DEI, Die!

DEI, Texas, discrimination, quota, race, racism, sexism

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
national politics & policies progress voluntary cooperation

Dream & Achieve More, Not Less

Artemis, moon, space exploration, private enterprise, NASA

The successful Artemis II mission is one answer to what we have been told for way too long, that exploration “beyond known boundaries” is unaffordable and “too risky.”

“We are told not only to consume less but to dream less,” writes John Tillman. “Always the same chorus: lower your expectations. Stop reaching.” SpaceX and Artemis II have interrupted this tune.

And Artemis II has a lot to do with SpaceX, Tillman stresses. It’s NASA, it’s a government program, but one heavily reliant on markets.

NASA deserves credit for managing a complex mission. But 2,700 private companies were involved in providing crucial components.

Lockheed Martin. Made the Orion spacecraft that carried the crew.

Boeing. Made “the massive core stage of the Space Launch System rocket.”

Northrop Grumman. Made rocket boosters and an abort system.

Aerojet Rocketdyne. Made engines and thrusters.

“That’s just the prime contractors. Beneath them sat a supply chain of extraordinary depth.”

There’s more. In the five decades that NASA avoided lunar exploration and colonization, private enterprise had been providing reminder after reminder as to just how much could be accomplished by tapping dispersed knowledge and talents — from feeding the masses to connecting everyone via computer networking — making any lingering timidity or depressive preconception ultra-passé.

“SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launches for $67 million, lands its boosters, and flies again within weeks. That’s a nearly twenty-five-fold cost reduction through competition and innovation. When companies bear the risk, they solve problems creatively. When taxpayers bear the risk, you get decades of stagnation.”

That’s how markets and dreams work — when they’re allowed to.

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 national politics & policies partisanship

The AOC-Schiff Thesis

Congress, AOC, Adam Schiff, Eric Swallwell, controversy

I wonder how many others were amused, as I was last week, to hear Senator Adam Schiff praise members of his party for the ouster of his fellow Californian and Democrat, Rep. Eric Swallwell, from Congress.

The tale, as told on this website on Sunday, is that Swallwell — one of Schiff’s closest colleagues pushing the Russiagate gambit against the first Trump administration — was pressured to resign over the massive amount of complaints against him for sexual harassment and other unwanted sexual advances. There is even an accusation of rape. 

Also resigning was a Republican from Texas, Tony Gonzalez, for similar reasons.

Schiff — who claimed to be “sickened” and “aghast” at the accusations and what Swallwell “has done” — followed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in scorning the Republicans for postponing dealing with the Gonzalez problem. He accused the Republicans of not wanting to abandon Gonzalez because they wanted to continue to maintain their majority in the House.

But this works both ways. Sure, Republicans postponed pressuring the ousting of Gonzalez until Democrats likewise agreed to pressure Swallwell to resign. Both parties maintain the previous balance. This is politics. Not great high-mindedness. On either side.

Further, the big issue was Swallwell’s gubernatorial run — contributing to the splitting up of Democratic votes thereby threatening to allow two Republicans to appear on the run-off on Election Day in November in California’s screwy Top Two system. 

Finding an excuse to undermine Swallwell’s run was surely a big part of the magnanimous Democratic effort to remove him from Congress.

“You think you know someone, and it turns out you don’t,” said Schiff about Swallwell. “I didn’t socialize with Eric Swallwell, but I worked with him on the Judiciary Committee — I would never have imagined that he was capable of something like this.”

I think we know quite enough about Schiff and his partisanship, as we do so many in Congress. They are capable of anything.

Meanwhile, the vote to expel Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) — accused of expropriating FEMA funds to the tune of $5 million — has not exactly proven the AOC-Schiff thesis on swift Democratic self-policing. She’s still in Congress, though a vote may occur tomorrow, we’re told.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine/Nano Banana

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

Categories
defense & war general freedom ideological culture Internet controversy national politics & policies

Deuce Bigelow, Political Philosopher

Rob Schneider, the draft, conscription, freedom

Americans have not endured a military draft since the 1970s. Our bodies and very lives aren’t conscript. Just our fortunes.

Not perfect, true, but as political trades go it’s better for equal freedom than slightly lower taxes and a return of the draft, which conscripts some* to benefit (the story runs) “all.”

The all-volunteer force has produced the world’s best military . . . without “slave” labor.

Comedian Rob Schneider thinks differently.  

“We must once again recommit ourselves to one Nation under God, indivisible,” he posted to X recently. “Therefore, we must restore the military draft for our Nation’s young people.

“Each and every American, at eighteen years of age, must serve two years of military service. They could also choose to serve part of that time overseas or in country in a volunteer capacity,” he went on.

“Unlike in today’s Universities, our young people will learn how truly great their country is and how unique and incredible are the Freedoms that this Nation bestows upon them.” But wouldn’t the best place to learn of American freedoms be living free in America? 

Other criticism leaned to mockery, such as the parody movie poster of Deuce Bigelow Joins the Army. 

Schneider later clarified that he aims for less military action: “A military with EVERY SEGMENT OF SOCIETY REPRESENTED would make the DEPLOYMENT of TROOPS and foreign wars LESS likely as there would be MORE accountability at the highest levels of power.”

This notion is, explains The Epoch Times, “part of a public appeal for Americans to return to traditional values.”

But surely the all-volunteer service is more traditional, the norm for most of our history, and, especially in the sense that freedom to join, or not, embodies liberty better than coercion does. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The all-volunteer force is admittedly not an exact replica of our society, representing “every segment.” It is better than that. Better educated. Better motivated. In better shape. Consider that the military cannot use at least 12 percent of the population for any purpose.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

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

Categories
international affairs national politics & policies

What, We Worry?

foreign policy, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, China, technology

For many decades, U.S. presidents have cited national security as a reason for this or that exercise of power . . . and spending. 

Watching CBS’s 60 Minutes two weeks ago, it became painfully obvious that “national security” are simply two words our past leaders spat out when politically convenient and not at all a concept to which they have paid serious attention.

The first story in the popular TV news magazine’s March 22nd episode concerned rare earth metals. 

“Right now, China holds a near-monopoly over these strategic metals that are key components in so much that makes the modern world go: smartphones, robotics, EV’s; also fighter jets, drones and radar technology,” explained correspondent Jon Wertheim. “That is, China controls materials essential to America’s ability to wage war.”

Quite a problem, especially considering that China is our most powerful and aggressive adversary. 

Shipbuilding, or the lack thereof, was the subject of the segment that followed. 

“The war in Iran is highlighting the importance of ships — not just warships but cargo vessels — like those carrying oil or gas trapped near the Strait of Hormuz,” Lesley Stahl reported. “But American shipbuilding is in shambles, due to decades of shortsighted policies and neglect.

“Our submarine building program is sluggish. And our commercial shipbuilding is nearly extinct,” she continued. “China makes roughly 1,000 cargo ships a year. The U.S.? Maybe three. The Trump administration has called this a national security crisis.”

Had presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama been awake and competent, and not lapdogs for Beijing, I wonder what they would have called it. 

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 regulation

Safer Nukes Now?

AI, nuclear power, regulations

We may have power-hungry artificial intelligence operations to thank for the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a permit for the “first commercial reactor” that it has approved for construction “in nearly a decade.”

It’s also “the first approval for a non-light water reactor in more than 40 years.”

National Review characterizes the construction permit as the first to be issued by the NRC in its 52-year history “for an advanced nuclear reactor design.”

TerraPower subsidiary US SFR Owner has one more regulatory hurdle. (SFR: sodium-cooled fast reactor.) It must apply separately for an operating license before the projected 345-megawatt electric plant, once built, can begin operating. After that, the way will have been paved for more such plants.

Jeff Terry, with the Illinois Institute of Technology, praises the reactor’s cheaper and safer design. “The advantage of a sodium fast reactor is that it’s cheaper to build because it’s not pressurized. So you don’t have to worry about loss of pressure. If you have an accident, the sodium fuel will harden and solidify. It’s a nice, stable, passively safe design.”

He says that the technology available now “helps the safety of a reactor which was incredibly safe 30 years ago.”

Efforts have been made to build a sodium-cooled reactor before. In the 1980s, the Department of Energy developed a prototype, and it passed safety tests with flying colors. But the Clinton administration ended the program for reasons that Terry summarizes as “sheer stupidity.”

We should prefer sheer wisdom.

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 international affairs national politics & policies

Weaponized Data via Silencer

data collection, China, surveillance, authoritarianism

“Authoritarian regimes have developed strong cyber espionage capabilities that enable their influence and coercion operations,” explains a National Intelligence Council “assessment,” dated April 7, 2020.

This report goes on to say that the “collection and aggregation of vast quantities of personal data” by commercial enterprises, and the willingness to share this data with third parties, “increases both the likelihood and the impact of data breaches.”

The report, which is highly redacted though declassified in late 2022, fingers Iranian hackers as well as foreign governments for having obtained private data on U.S. citizens. In 2013, Russia’s Federal Security Service “sponsored a theft of 3 billion accounts” off an American web service, and in 2017 Chinese agents “stole 147 million from a US credit-reporting agency.” And more.

Reading on, a sense of déjà vu develops. The report calls this technological capacity “digital authoritarian capabilities” — yet our own government has the same. 

It accuses China of marshaling “mass surveillance and AI-driven algorithmic tracking of its citizens’ behavior at home to inform the use of soft or coercive incentives and disincentives to control them,” but that, I’m afraid, is what our government does, too.

Now we learn that all this and more was known by American intelligence agencies during the first Trump administration.

But was kept from him. 

That is, “intelligence analysts downplayed China’s actions because they had disdain for the ‘vulgarian’ Trump,” explains Just the News, and at least one agent kept evidence of possible Chinese interference in the 2020 election from the president because that might have led to “policies against China” that the agent didn’t like.

That, right there, we call a datum.

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
free trade & free markets national politics & policies political economy

Stupid About Greed

Representative Tim Burchett, Iran, oil, economics

Tough times. You encounter a politician. He takes your side on an important issue. He speaks eloquently and with apparent sense. But then switch the subject and suddenly he blurts out such stupidities that you wonder about his sanity, the state of the nation’s education, the very meaning of life itself.

Well, not that last one.

Let’s turn the page in our anti-hymnal to Representative Tim Burchett (R.-Tenn.). I’ve quoted him. He’s given off detectable glimmers of hope. Yet now he (in the words of an enthusiastic twitterer) “exposes the price of gas increasing in America has nothing to do with the Iran war.”

But what does he say?

“How much oil does America get from Iran? Zero.”

True enough. But so what? 

Our president’s un-declared war has resulted in conflagrations of oil wells and a cessation of petroleum transportation through the Strait of Hormuz. But while acid rain descends upon Iranians, it’s gas prices that concern Americans. And Burchett is disgusted.

“That’s how much this is a scam,” he said. “And these oil companies, shame on ’em. They’re using this opportunity to make record profits once again.”

We’ve heard this logic before. 

“It’s greed!”

No, it isn’t. Sure, I’m no economist — but I understand that the market for petroleum products is a worldwide one, and if supply collapses on the other side of the world, it’s going to affect prices over here. We may not buy from Iran, but folks elsewhere do, and when they cannot get what they need, they’ll go to competitors, and world prices will be bid up.

To avoid this natural process, we’d have to simultaneously decrease demand. And how would Burchett do that? 

The first casualty of a price hike is common sense.

Not here, though, for 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
election law national politics & policies

The Impossible Dream ID

SAVE, voting, voter ID, citizenship

The SAVE America Act, formerly known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, may get a vote this week on the floor of the U.S. House.

I like the bill’s two key provisions: Voter ID and proof of citizenship.

But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has already announced the bill “dead on arrival,” even with House passage, as Democrats will filibuster to block a Senate vote. 

“According to an August 2025 Pew Poll, 95 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats favor voter ID,” reported CNBC. “A 2024 Gallup poll found that 84 percent of Americans support voter ID and 83 percent support proof of citizenship to register to vote.”

Sunday, on ABC’s This Week with[out] George Stephanopoulos, co-anchor Jonathan Karl detailed the public polling before asking Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.): “What about the idea of voter I.D., a photo I.D. being required to vote?”

“It’s still going to be something that disenfranchises people,” replied Schiff, those “that don’t have the proper real I.D., driver’s license I.D., that don’t have the I.D. necessary to vote, even though they are citizens. This is another way to simply try to suppress the vote.”

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) opposes voter ID, too . . . yet he requires government-issued photo identification to attend his campaign events. 

Years back, then-Vice-President Kamala Harris warned that “in some people’s mind [voter ID] means you’re gonna have to Xerox or photocopy your ID to send it in to prove you are who you are. Well, there’re a whole lot of people, especially people who live in rural communities, who don’t — there’s no Kinko’s, there’s no Office Max near them. Of course, people have to prove who they are. But not in a way that makes it almost impossible for them to prove who they are.”

Seems Democrat leaders cannot imagine any possible system of checking ID or determining citizenship. Even though the rest of the democratic world does it without a hitch. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The key action is in the states, as this headline in Michigan last week attests: “While Washington Argues Over Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Rules, Michigan Grabs the Wheel.”

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

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