Common Sense with Paul Jacob

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.

Tags Free Nakoula, Hillary Clinton, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

general freedom national politics & policies

Here’s Looking at You, Everybody

Post author By Redactor
Post date May 15, 2013
4 Comments on 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.

Tags Immigration Modernization Act, national ID

Thought

John Trenchard, Cato’s Letters

Post author By Redactor
Post date May 15, 2013
No Comments on John Trenchard, Cato’s Letters

If our Money be gone, thank God, our Eyes are left; Sharpened by Experience and Adversities, we can see through Disguises, and will be no more amused with Moon-shine.

Thought

Lysander Spooner

[T]he only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in keeping their money in their own pockets.

government transparency tax policy

The Block Stops Here

We were initially told that the IRS had apologized to Tea Party and patriot groups for blocking them from non-profit tax status.

But there has been no apology.

Instead, last Friday, Lois Lerner, the head of the tax-exempt division of the Internal Revenue Service, confided to a group of tax attorneys at an American Bar Association conference in Washington. She admitted that the IRS had indeed been guilty of unfairly delaying and blocking Tea Party and conservative groups from establishing tax-exempt organizations, as these dissident groups had been complaining about for years.

Who was to blame? Only mere “low-level employees” — no senior management, heaven forfend.

Then it was disclosed that senior IRS muckety-mucks actually knew in 2011 — well before the IRS commissioner assured Congress that the agency wasn’t doing precisely what it was doing. Now, latest disclosures put the beginning of the political bias policy all the way back to 2010.

Of course, the IRS vehemently denies that politics played any role.

And what about Barack “buck-stops-here” Obama?

“I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this,” the president said in response to a question, adding, “I think it was on Friday.”

In denial, the president spun, “If, in fact, IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that had been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups” and “if you’ve got the IRS operating in anything less than a neutral and non-partisan way, then . . . it is contrary to our traditions.”

Well, if these ifs weren’t so (traditionally?) evasive, we might take the prez seriously.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tags barack obama, IRS, Lois Lerner, Tea Party

initiative, referendum, and recall

Rocky Mountain Facts

Norma Anderson is one of the politician-plaintiffs challenging Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights in federal court. The former Republican state senator claims the citizen-enacted measure, requiring a vote of the people to raise taxes, is unconstitutional. Why? It violates the legislature’s divine right to raise taxes without having to bother to obtain voter approval.

“We should eliminate the initiative to change the constitution,” she wrote in the bimonthly magazine of the Colorado Municipal League, “but continue the process for the statutes.”

Then, only the legislature would have the power to propose amendments — or, I should say, not propose amendments — like term limits or tax-and-spending limits.

Plus, legislators can repeal any statutory initiative they don’t like. That happened with campaign finance reform.

Anderson complains that Colorado’s “constitution has been amended repeatedly by initiative” and that all those amendments “have made it the wordiest and longest in the nation.”

True?

No. Colorado doesn’t have the longest state constitution. Or the second longest. Or third or fourth or the fifth longest. Colorado’s ranks seventh in word count.

Moreover, the campaign finance measure noted above accounts for nearly 10 percent of the constitution’s verbiage.

Besides, most of the amendments to Colorado’s constitution have come from legislators, not through citizen-initiated petitions. Since voter initiatives began, roughly two-thirds, 63 percent, have come from the legislature.

Forget the facts, though, Anderson and her fellow politicians have had enough of popular government.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Tags Colorado, Norma Anderson, TABOR

Thought

Salvador Dali

It is not necessary for the public to know whether I am joking or whether I am serious, just as it is not necessary for me to know it myself.

Thought

Ortega y Gasset

[T]he direction of society has been taken over by a type of man who is not interested in the principles of civilisation. Not of this or that civilisation but — from what we can judge to-day — of any civilisation.

links

Townhall: ‘Inappropriate’ Rights Violations in Obama’s ‘Democracy’

Post author By Redactor
Post date May 12, 2013
1 Comment on Townhall: ‘Inappropriate’ Rights Violations in Obama’s ‘Democracy’

This weekend’s Common Sense column over at Townhall.com is about those awful Nixonian reactionaries who use government to suppress opposition and help establish fascist right-wing government here in America.

Oops. No, it isn’t. It’s about those awful Obamanian “progressives” using government to suppress opposition and help establish etc. etc.

Click on over to Townhall for the scoop. Come back here for a few extra scoops.