Category: national politics & policies

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies regulation

Children’s Crusade Goes Forth

climate panic

In 2015, a group of young people sued the federal government.

The government’s allegedly actionable dereliction was having “known for decades that carbon dioxide pollution was causing catastrophic climate change . . . and a nation-wide transition away from fossil fuels was needed to protect plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”

The government “recklessly allowed” transport of fossil fuels, combustion of fossil fuels, etc.

I blame the lawyers more than the kids for the filing’s falsehoods and non sequiturs. Outlawing fossil fuels would be the actual catastrophe and actual reckless violation of individual and constitutional rights.

Climate variations are nothing new in the earth’s four-billion-year history. We should expect to see all the usual dry spells, hurricanes, and tornadoes that have buffeted human beings since we emerged as human beings. Fossil fuels help us to protect ourselves from these things.

Government cannot outlaw fossil fuels slowly or quickly without in effect putting a gun to the heads of everyone who wants to use a gas-fueled car, bulldozer, or airplane and saying, “You have no right to take the actions required for your survival.”

Efforts by several states and the federal government to outlaw various uses of fossil fuels are what deserve lawsuits.

Judge Ann Aiken, who recently had a chance to end this litigation but is illogically allowing it to move forward, has one thing right: “Some may balk at the Court’s approach as errant or unmeasured. . . .”

I balk. It’s errant. And over the top.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

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

Categories
First Amendment rights Fourth Amendment rights media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The Citizen Threat

surveillance, government

“The Republicans,” said Tucker Carlson — speaking of elected Republicans — “who really do hate their own voters in a way that’s pathological, are just re-upping the spy laws to allow the Biden Administration to spy on their voters.”

Mr. Carlson is not wrong, at least about Republican leaders aiding Democrats in spying on conservatives and others who sometimes vote GOP.

Yes, the federal government’s surveillance and criminal “justice” apparatus has been directed by Democrats — the Biden Administration specifically, and whoever runs that — to target, as The Enemy, conservatives and others associated with (or merely adjacent to) the Republican Party.

This cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Democratic thought leaders pushed this new anti-terrorism paradigm from the first moments of the Biden Administration, in public. 

Or at least on MSNBC, where John Brennan clearly reconceived opposition to his Democratic Party as a movement looking “very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas.” 

“Even libertarians,” he said, constituted “an insidious threat” to, not the Democratic Party, but “our Democracy.”

This perspectival shift, of seeing policy and political opposition as “insurgency,” is key to the new anti-democratic mindset.

And very real. It could end our small-r republican experiment.

Which brings us back to Republican politicians and their willingness to let Democrats institute a permanent pogrom against all who oppose Democrats’ big government programs.

Why do this? Out of hatred? Disdain? Fear?

Let’s not ignore the age-old impulse of politicians to squelch the speech of opponents. The longer in office, the more these careerists tend to view their own constituents as threats. After all, anyone might freely offer a complaint that emboldens or comforts the opposition. This is a bipartisan principle.

Better an enforced silence about the dictates of Washington, sadly, if you are a Washingtonian delivering dictates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

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

Categories
general freedom international affairs national politics & policies too much government

To End the Great Declension

Argentina, Javier Milei, money, inflation, government

“Today begins a new era in Argentina,” said Javier Milei in his inaugural address as the new president of Argentina. “Today we end a long and sad history of decadence and decline and begin the road to the reconstruction of our country.”

President Milei has focused on a problem — the decadence of mass poverty — and identified it with a basic view of government: interventionism in markets, central control and bureaucratic proliferation. These, once established, start a cycle that must end in decay, decline. “The outgoing government has left us with hyperinflation, and it is our top priority to make every effort to avoid a catastrophe that would push poverty above 90 percent and indigence above 50 percent,” he explained.

Milei is not hesitant; gradualism’s not his bag, for the country does not “have margin for sterile discussions. Our country demands action and immediate action.”

At some point, the argument runs, you have to boldly cut government. Not just cut the rate of government growth, which is about all American Republicans have achieved — often allowing others to take the credit, as with Bill “The Era of Big Government Is Over” Clinton.

Milei’s first act as president was an executive order reducing the number of government ministries from 21 to nine. If this move actually succeeds in paring down the size of Argentina’s state apparatus and workforce, it will be something of a miracle.

In a country that needs miracles. 

Here in these United States, we may not have hyperinflation, as such, but we do face a crisis. The deficits are persistent, and majorities in both parties seem utterly unconcerned about the $34 trillion debt, rushing at us fast. Costing more to service than we spend on defense.

Only Vivek Ramaswamy has pushed specific ways to cut government.

But, unlike Milei in South America, here in North America Vivek’s just not that popular.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Fireflly

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

Categories
government transparency national politics & policies

Two Roadblocks, and Their Names

Jeffrey Epstein, UAP, UFO, cover up, Congress

Meandering through social media, a popular meme with several variants runs something like this:

“Hey, this guy says the government believes in UFOs!

“See, nobody cares. Now show us the Epstein client list.”

The gist: the Jeffrey Epstein story is a bigger, more important story than the on 70-plus years of government control of the UFO story.

Well, we now know precisely why we cannot have either: a few specific politicians are blocking disclosure, one Democrat on the Epstein story and a handful of Republicans on the UFO story.

Hillary Vaughn of Fox News asked Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) why he — the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee — won’t subpoena Epstein’s flight logs to and from his private Caribbean island wherein sex trafficking with under-age females and males went on. His response? “I don’t know anything about his flight logs” and “This has never been raised by anyone.”

This is untrue. 

UFO/UAP transparency, on the other hand, has gone much further than the Epstein — probably because there are fewer politicians implicated in crimes. Yet two major disclosure elements in a recent defense bill have been nixed by Mike Turner (R-Oh.) and Mike Rogers (R-Ala.). Journalist Ross Coulthart, who has covered this story best, ascribes this pair’s opposition to disclosure to their respective military-industrial complex constituencies. And Coulthart adds that Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also had a hand in disclosure suppression.

Both the Epstein and the UFO story reveal a lot about our government, which wants us to know the truth about neither.

And as for the notion that these issues must be played off each other, the proper memed response would be “Why can’t we have both?”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

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

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

A Great Big “Request”

Van Jones, racist, racism, replacement theory, race, immigration

“You are witnessing the rise of an American demagogue,” said Van Jones.

He was not referring to himself.

The CNN talking head was reacting to something Vivek Ramaswamy said during the last Republican presidential candidates’ forum — another one lacking the main candidate, the overwhelming favorite Donald Trump.

Van Jones, who is African-American, called Vivek, who is Indian-American, “a very, very despicable person.”

At issue is something the Republican candidate discussed: “Great Replacement Theory,” which is the notion that politicians and other insiders are using a variety of means to discourage white people from having babies while encouraging brown people to have babies . . . and for non-Europeans to come into the country both legally and illegally. The idea is that with a white minority in America, a different (or same-old/same-old?) politics will emerge (solidify). 

The theory is plenty controversial, in no small part because a few racists have listed it as an excuse to “justify” mass shootings.

But also controversial? It looks like it is more than a theory, it is a plan.

Vivek pointed this out in a tweet. He produced a video from two years ago in which Van Jones himself outlined the “theory” as a strategy: “The request from the racial justice left: we want the white majority to go from being a majority to being a minority and like it. That’s a tough request, and change is hard.”

Yet Jones regards this “request” as something it would be demagogic — even racist — to refuse.

Jones’s leftism does not look like “racial justice” so much as a racial vendetta.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

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

Categories
national politics & policies regulation subsidy

The Great De-Platforming?

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, AM radio, technology, regulations, mandates

“There is a certain amount of irony in seeing Republicans come to the floor proposing mandates on business,” said Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in the U.S. Senate, yesterday. Kentucky’s junior senator objected “to Republicans picking winners and losers.”

At issue is a bill pushed by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx.), the AM For Every Vehicle Act. Automobile manufacturers are phasing out amplitude modulation (AM) on radio receivers, and Cruz objects primarily on two rationales: 

  1. emergency roadway communications rely upon AM frequencies, and 
  2. since conservatives dominate AM talk radio, the move looks suspiciously like a sneaky way to decrease conservative and Republican political influence. 

“AM radio is where a lot of talk radio is found,” argues Cruz, “and talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. And let’s be clear: Big business doesn’t like things that are overwhelmingly conservative.”

Technology and media change all the time, and as ostensible advocates for free markets, it’s no business of Republicans so much as to nudge the market in one direction or the other. Perhaps AM’s days are numbered. 

Shed a tear and move on.

Cruz characterizes the issue as one of free speech. Paul expresses incredulity: “The debate over free speech, as listed in the First Amendment, is that government shall pass no law. It has nothing to do with forcing your manufacturer to have AM radio.”

It gets messier: electric car manufacturers say that the AM band interferes with their batteries, and the technology to shield the batteries is expensive. So Cruz’s law would forbid companies from charging more for this tech.

If you ask me, the batteries being harmed by AM radio indicates a glaring defect not in a radio platform but in the platform of electric cars.

So it’s great that Rand Paul’s amendment to undermine Cruz’s mandate would also nix the electric car tax credit. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

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

Categories
Accountability government transparency national politics & policies

If/Why

UAP, UFO, disclosure, Congress, censorship

“This is about accountability, and about transparency,” said Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), at yesterday’s House Oversight Committee’s bipartisan press conference on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP’s) — “about holding the Deep State to task for their refusal to declassify information that the American people need to know, that Congress needs to know.”

He paints the same picture of the UAP/UFO issue that has been rumored about for nearly 80 years: “Foreign objects are buzzing around in our airspace, and Joe Biden’s over 30 generals have not only been silent on the issue, but have yet to play ball with Congress.”

The tenor of the presser was summarized early by host Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.): “It is unacceptable that any mid-level, unelected bureaucrat staffers can tell members of Congress that we are not allowed to access information about UAP’s.” 

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has pushed a disclosure procedure on the order of The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, but these representatives scorned that notion, arguing there remains too much secrecy surrounding the 1963 event in Dallas. 

“So, whether it’s little green men, American technology, or worse — technology from the CCP — we need to know,” insists Rep. Ogles.

“I think the American people have a simple question,” Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) hazarded, “which is ‘if none of this exists, if this is all false, why, at every turn, are there people trying to stop the transparency and the disclosure? Why are folks who are in charge of committees, whether they are in the House or in the Senate, opposed to this disclosure?’ And it’s that point alone that piques the interest.”

Indeed it does. 

It’s time for the people to find out.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

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

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies

Limits “Of” not “To”

anonymous, masks, privacy, freedom

When people talk about “limits to free speech,” do they know what they’re talking about?

“Is there a limit, in your opinion,” an audience panel member on Fox’s The Faulkner Focus asked former U.N. Ambassador and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, “to free speech?” 

The questioner explained that “we all know you can’t go into an airport and shout ‘bomb,’ and yet, right now, you can chant, on college campuses, to ‘kill all the Jews. . . .’” She demanded to know what the limits are.

Freedom of speech is a term of art for the speech that liberty allows; speech involving actual crime — in planning — has always been (and should now be) illegal. 

But don’t demand limits to free speech. Instead enforce the limits of free speech. There is a logic to the notion.

How did presidential candidate Nikki Haley respond?

She said we never want to give up on free speech, but “the difference is when you are pushing violence.” Then Haley went to a more mainstream set of arguments blaming current ideological turmoil on misinformation online. Her response: End anonymity on the Internet. 

This struck many critics as rather extreme. In a “partial” walk-back, yesterday, Haley told CNBC, “I don’t mind anonymous American people having free speech; what I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having free speech.”

But of course if all are not required to register to speak, name attached, then there is no way to catch the non-Americans.

As inheritors of a political and legal system that was achieved, in no small part, by pseudonymous speech — think Cato and Publius and the Federal Farmer — I suggest another kind of limit: caution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

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

Categories
national politics & policies

It Is and It Isn’t

Social Security, entitlements

At least once a month the same hoary “meme” lands in my social media feed, an incensed objection to calling Social Security benefits “entitlements”: Why, Social Security isn’t an entitlement, it’s an earned benefit! We’ve been paying for it all our lives!

This old chestnut is a sad indicator that American education isn’t up to snuff and an even sadder indicator that people are especially confused about the country’s biggest wealth transfer program.

An “entitlement” is something one is owed. We are entitled to Social Security benefits, it is said, because we are forced to pay into the fund. That’s why it’s called an “entitlement program.” 

That being said, it sadly isn’t. Social Security has never been run soundly as a pension fund. From the beginning, and by design, politicians have used it as a way to buy votes, but — in typical politician fashion — they have lied about it. 

But the Supreme Court hasn’t. That body has made it quite clear that Social Security is not an entitlement program, but a mere “welfare” program, subject to the whims and wiles of tax-and-spend politicians.

Because of the lies and evasions, American voters remain perennially confused, and get very uncomfortable when the insolvency issue is brought up. Hence the issue’s long status as the “third rail” of American politics, with the frontrunners in the current presidential race each accusing the other of seeking to touch that rail.

Nevertheless, Eric Boehm notes at Reason, a few Republican challengers now talk about a major overhaul. Chris Christie wants means testing; Nikki Haley wants to raise the retirement age. Vivek Ramaswamy says we must act sooner rather than later, but Tim Scott said seniors shouldn’t take any cuts — which Boehm notes misses the true nature of the problem. 

So, is the GOP finally getting serious?

I wouldn’t bet my retirement on it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Firefly and PicFinder

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

Categories
national politics & policies political challengers

Twelve-Point Play

Joe Biden, old, elderly, election

How popular is President Joe Biden? 

Better to ask how unpopular; a substitute Democrat to be named later is more popular. 

Twelve points more popular.

“An unnamed ‘Democratic candidate’ shifts the race by 12 points on the margins,” Aaron Blake reports in The Washington Post, “turning a four-point Democratic deficit against Trump into an eight-point lead, 48 percent to 40 percent.”

Democrats are mulling all this over because their unpopular president, according to a recent New York Times-Siena College poll, trails former President Donald Trump “in five of the six most competitive battleground states”: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. 

“I am concerned,” offered U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), “by the inexplicable credibility that Donald Trump seems to have despite all of the indictments, the lies, the incredible wrongdoing.”

Or is it, instead, the lack of credibility enjoyed by establishment politicians and media?

“What many missed about the poll is that a generic Democrat isn’t the only one significantly overperforming the actual candidate likely to lead the ticket,” Blake further explains.

“The poll also tested a race without Trump,” discovering that the “GOP’s lead goes from an average of four points with Trump to an average of 16 points without him, 52–36.”

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley polls best against Biden. 

Democrats, however, lack an “available alternative.” Vice-President Kamala Harris polls only a single point better than Biden, which is damning news for Biden. Would another Californian, Gov. Gavin Newsom, fare better? 

Or is the only good Democrat a mythical Democrat?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

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