Category: national politics & policies

Categories
First Amendment rights media and media people national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Dick Durbin’s Dangerous Idea

Politicians think in terms of institutions. If you identify yourself as an individual, a mere citizen, pfft: you’re nothing. But say you are from a lobbying group, or a government bureau, or a news organization — suddenly you matter.

That’s even how they interpret the Constitution.

They are wrong.

Back in May, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin expressed doubt whether “bloggers, or ‘someone who is Tweeting,’ should be given media shield rights.” He believes a big unanswered question looms:

What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection?

Durbin thinks he’s both clever and profound to ask “21st century questions about a provision in our Constitution that was written over 200 years ago.”

But he is actually missing the whole enchilada, the point of the Constitution.

First, our two-century old freedoms don’t have an expiration date. Second, individuals have rights, not “institutions.” And not because we belong to a group. Either everyone has a basic right, or no one does.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds countered Durbin’s institutional prejudice with a fine piece in the New York Post, where he takes a common sense position: “a journalist is someone who’s doing journalism, whether they get paid for it or not.”

Reynolds reminds us that, in James Madison’s time, “it was easy to be a pamphleteer . . . and there was real influence in being such.”

Just so for today’s Tweeters and bloggers.

Hey: as far as I’m concerned, you’re being a journalist just for commenting on this at ThisIsCommonSense.com.

I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

On the Wire

There’s something worse than “printing the myth”: printing government press releases and calling that “journalism.”

In those cases where folks in today’s news media do get their watchdog legs underneath them and yet their questions go unanswered, we citizens need be mightily concerned.

“The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment,” the Washington Post reported yesterday.

What did they refuse to comment on?

Wiretap stats.

Spokespeople for the Obama Administration have been repeating incessantly that we ought not worry about them grabbing all our phone and Internet and financial information and communications. After all, they tell us, to actually delve into that mountain of metadata to gaze at your personal stuff, the Feds have to lug a rubber stamp across town to a secret court to get approval.

But, lo and behold: the Administrative Office of the United States Court released figures on the number of federal wiretaps in criminal investigations, showing that wiretaps had spiked up 71 percent in 2012. Such wiretaps by state and local police increased only 5 percent.

The average number of federal wiretaps between 1997 and 2009 were 550. But in 2010 the number soared to 1,207. The number went down to 792 the next year and then shot back up to 1,354 last year — a 147 percent increase over the 1997-2009 period.

The report further notes that “A single wiretap can sweep up thousands of communications.” For instance, one wiretap in Los Angeles intercepted more than 185,000 calls — nine of every ten deemed non-incriminating.

Why worry about governments having too much power? Governments have been known to use the power.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption national politics & policies too much government

S.O.P. at the IRS

Remember the IRS scandal? I mean the one about how the Internal Revenue Service has been monkey-wrenching the applications for tax-exempt status submitted by politically non-leftward organizations (Tax Prof Blog has the latest).

But politically motivated clogging of an application process is just one way that the IRS abuses us. Victims of its normal forms of abuse have also been coming forward lately, seeing that they now have at least a temporarily receptive audience.

One such is Jeffrey Black, former employee of the Federal Air Marshal Service, who has long tried to fix the problems he sees with the Air Marshals. It seems that not every colleague appreciates it.

After retiring in 2010, Black appeared in a documentary (“Please Remove Your Shoes”) about the pseudo-security measures we have to endure at the airport. Why not? He couldn’t be fired any more, right? But the day the documentary premiered — “almost to the hour” — the IRS notified him that he was being audited. It also slapped a lien on his home.

In the end, their investigation turned up $480 that Black owed the IRS, which he paid; and $8,300 that the IRS owed Black, which IRS didn’t pay.

“Being a veteran of extensive retaliation . . . I am not surprised about this,” he told CNN. “It is basically the only way they can still . . . retaliate against me after I retired.”

The IRS denies that audits are ever politically motivated.

They deny many things.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom government transparency national politics & policies too much government

Google or Government?

The ugly fact: our government is capturing all of our phone records. It reportedly is grabbing our credit card information, as well tracking us online. The latest “defense” of this practice? Such mined data’s no worse than the information we voluntarily provide Google or Facebook or other big, bad corporations.

This after-the-fact rationalization comes up short, however, missing that crucial “voluntary” aspect, whereby we get to choose what information we give to a corporation, including providing none at all. That’s not how the National Security Agency works. The NSA just grabs our information without our consent.

What other possible differences might there be?

There’s the crucial matter of degree, too. “The government possesses the ultimate executive power,” argued The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, author of Deep State, appearing on “All In with Chris Hayes” on MSNBC. “I mean, it can jail you, it can detain you, it can kill you.”

“Even though the Obama campaign and Apple . . . know more about me than perhaps members of my family, and probably the government,” Ambinder added, “what the government can do with that information is much different than what a corporation can do. They can make me buy something or vote for someone; the government can imprison me.”

Mr. Ambinder is absolutely correct . . . except for his ridiculous statement that campaigns can “make” you vote for their candidate or that corporations can “make” you buy their products. The crucial difference is between the arts of persuasion (including tempting, cajoling, nudging) on the one hand, and sheer homicidal force coupled with kleptomaniacal thievery on the other.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies too much government

A Matter of Trust

You don’t trust President Barack Obama?

No faith in the massive federal bureaucracy? Do you lack confidence in Congress representing your interests? How much do you trust the federal courts that handle secret requests from the Department of Justice . . .and then issue secret decisions based on the judge’s secret interpretation of the law?

Be advised: President Obama finds “your lack of faith disturbing.”

“If people can’t trust not only the executive branch, but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure we’re abiding by the Constitution, due process, and rule of law,” Obama told reporters in response to the public uproar to a leak of classified information suggesting that the detailed phone records of every American have been seized by the National Security Agency, “then we’re going to have some problems here.”

Agreed. Problems galore. The morning paper reads like a dystopian novel.

Are we really supposed to feel protected by a federal judge in a secret court wherein only the government is represented?

Or represented by Congress, for goodness sake?! Only a few congressmen are told, and those sworn to secrecy.

The Obama Administration incredibly calls this set-up “an unprecedented degree of accountability and transparency.”

There are compelling national security interests, upon which our rights must be balanced, the president explains. But in our constitutional system, as I argued at Townhall.com yesterday, there is no more compelling national interest than that the government fully obey the Fourth Amendment — and the entire document, please.

Thank you.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Ending One War for Another?

The most important thing we could do to protect the American people and win the War on Terror would be to end the War on Drugs.

That’s the logical conclusion from what Admiral James Stavridis, the former head of U.S. Southern Command and then NATO supreme allied commander, wrote for The Washington Post on Sunday, in a column titled, “The dark side of globalization.”

The admiral didn’t actually call for an end to drug criminalization in the U.S., or even for a less militaristic approach to it. But he did importantly warn us that, after 40 years as a Navy officer, what “keeps him awake at night” is the “convergence” of narco-terrorism.

“Drug cartels use sophisticated trafficking routes to move huge amounts of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines. Terrorists can in effect ‘rent’ these routes by co-opting the drug cartels through money, coercion or ideological persuasion,” wrote the admiral. “These organizations can then move personnel, cash or arms — possibly even a weapon of mass destruction — clandestinely to the United States.”

Preventing the delivery of mayhem to our shores, “a weapon of mass destruction” being top of the list, ought to be Job 1 — right up there with scrutinizing the non-profit status of tea party groups and paying Lois Lerner while she’s on leave.

Seriously, if we can remove the most likely nasty network for that dark delivery in one fell swoop, why wouldn’t we?

Plus, according to one estimate, we’d save more than the $17 billion we’ve already spent this year on a losing police-and-courts approach to a health issue.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Regulating Protest

How did our founders manage to establish a republic committed to free speech and the rights of the individual without a Federal Election Commission?

Not only did the Sons of Liberty and other patriots lack a functioning FEC to protect them from “big-money interests,” many of the political communications of the founding era, including works as consequential as The Federalist Papers, were put forth anonymously. Horrors!

Consider organizing like-minded people during colonial times: No TV, radio, the Internet, smart phones . . . and sans, too, the Internal Revenue Service, strategically blocking them from creating non-profit groups that “criticize how the country is run.”

Which brings up the sorry case of Lois G. Lerner, head of the IRS’s exempt organizations division, now mired in the muck of controversy over unequal treatment of non-profit organizations. She expressed her innocence in the whole affair, but then took the Fifth, refusing to testify.

Ms. Lerner’s now on paid leave. That’ll learn ’er.

I bumped into her back in the 1990s, while I headed U.S. Term Limits and she led the FEC’s enforcement division, which was targeting conservative and libertarian groups. The FEC was never able to prove we did anything wrong, but did cost us plenty of time and money defending against their assault.

What sparked the FEC’s action, then, was incumbent Congressman Mike Synar’s complaint after we informed the people of Oklahoma that Synar opposed term limits. He lost in the Democratic Party primary . . . to a guy who spent less than $3,000.

Yes, that’s the sort of speech the folks in Washington want to regulate.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption national politics & policies

Sebelius Crosses the Rubicon

Senator Lamar Alexander compares the latest Obama administration scandal to Iran-Contra . . . he says it’s “even bigger.”

One hates to continually harp on the president and his scandals, but he and his big government keep producing them. So here we go again!

Obamacare was supposed to save money. It hasn’t. And it should be no shock to learn that the plan has already overshot its budget. Its implementation budget. And Congress balked at throwing more money at the “Affordable Care Act,” perhaps on the grounds that  we can’t afford it.

So Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius passed around the hat to the major players in the managed medical insurance industry — the folks previously demonized by Democrats as the greedy bloodsuckers who singlehandedly caused industry price inflation — to push the plan through on a “shoestring budget.”

Trouble is, it’s not obvious that this is legal. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch called Sebelius’s private fundraising effort “absurd,” and promised to inquire about conflicts of interest.

It’s easy to see why the Republicans in the House and Senate are suspicious. Such a move rubs up against the grain of what a republic is. But I’m sure Democrats are shrugging. It is just another business-government partnership, after all.

Well, it’s not “just another.” It might end up being the biggest ever. And you have to draw the line somewhere. Ancient Romans drew the line to protect their republic at the Rubicon — which Caesar crossed, ushering in empire.

It’s not just armies that cross important boundaries.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies

Imprisonable Speech

Most of the media is finally examining the lies that the Obama administration told ─ is still telling ─ regarding last September’s terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi.

A matter worth investigating, as are wider questions regarding U.S. involvement in Libya.

But as the deceptions unravel, too few ponder the fate of one Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, ostensibly jailed for parole violations. The terms of his parole had prohibited him from using computers or the Internet without his parole officer’s approval. Obviously, Nakoula did use that technology to produce and distribute his anti-Islamic video, widely condemned for being cheesy, among other sins.

It was this video that Clinton and others blamed for inciting the attack in Benghazi.

Okay. The man violated parole. But many were eager to see Nakoula punished not because of that violation but because he exercised his freedom of speech in a way that offended people. We have also learned that soon after the attack, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Charles Woods, father of one of the slain, that the U.S. would make sure that “the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

At the least, Clinton was boneheaded to thus imply that the right to freedom of speech was or should be no safer in the U.S. than in Egypt. And considering all the circumstances here, it’s also fair to ask whether Nakoula would have ended up back in a jail cell sans Benghazi cover-up.

Could it possibly be that he is a political prisoner?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies

Here’s Looking at You, Everybody

Here we go again. One of the less-debated provisions lurking in the Immigration Modernization Act would revive an old statist dream: a national ID card.

More precisely, it would create a federal database of info on everybody. An increasingly intrusive national identification regime would follow.

An article in Wired alerts us that the 800-page bill provides for an “innocuously-named ‘photo tool,’ a massive federal database . . . containing names, ages, Social Security numbers and photographs of everyone in the country with a driver’s license and other state-issued ID.” Employers would have to check the database before hiring.

That’s intrusive enough. But this database would also lay the basis for all manner of further surveillance and authorization protocols.

A push for a national ID card as a way to combat terrorism has been ongoing especially since 9/11. Worries about illegal immigration have been another major rationale for planning an expansive surveillance regime.

Whether from fear of immigrants, fear of terrorists, fear of drugs, fear of cash or fear of unmonitored actions of any kind (what do people do when they draw the blinds?), the huddled masses are invited to eagerly submit to ever-more-invasive oversight. And, hey, unless we have “something to hide,” why wouldn’t we have boundless faith in the motives and powers of Big Brother?

Who should object to the database? Civil libertarians, libertarians, conservatives, liberals, or, really, anybody who gets a creepy-crawly feeling at the prospect of the surveillance state’s monitoring and approving our every move.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.