Tag: Donald Trump

Categories
election law First Amendment rights

How Deep Is Your Fake?

deep fake, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, lizards

Monday last, a group of Democratic congressfolk “sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), asking the agency to adopt regulations prohibiting the creation of deepfakes of election candidates,” Emma Camp tells us in last Thursday’s Reason article, “These Democrats Want the FEC To Crack Down on Elon Musk’s Grok.”

Current law already “prohibits a candidate for federal office or an employee or agent of a candidate from fraudulently misrepresenting themselves, committee, or organization under their control,” the letter states, but candidates have already been caught using “Artificial Intelligence (AI) in campaign ads to depict themselves or another candidate engaged in an action that did not happen or saying something the depicted candidate did not say.”

OK. Regardless of the merit of current regulation, the apparent fact that some political actors have defied the rule (perhaps out of ignorance) doesn’t necessitate more legislation. Why not just let the wheels of justice, or what passes for it in the FEC realm, go on doing what they’re doing?

Because Elon Musk.

Specifically, his X (“Twitter”) platform recently launched “Grok-2,” an AI for the creation of pictorial representations (not unlike those used here at ThisIsCommonSense.org). And, shock of shocks, there are no rules in place for ordinary people to take artistic license at those politicians they hate and and for those politicians they don’t.

As Ms. Camp notes, but the legislators don’t, most of these efforts have been for comic effect.

The Democrats don’t like this.

They request expeditious consideration for the creation, by the FEC, of new rules to “regulate” (suppress) AI by ordinary users to maintain the ostensible integrity of “our democracy.”

We have, Ms. Camp not unreasonably concludes, been pretty good at detecting “deep fakes” so far.

Besides, the big problem in politics is shallow fakes.

They’re everywhere. They’re called politicians.

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 partisanship

Repeal Obamacare

Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, MAGA, socialism, debt, lizard

Oy vey! Given the alternative of Donald Trump on the one hand and — now that Biden has bailed — a bad-as-Biden Biden-substitute on the other, Americans must re-level their look at the lesser of two evils.

It may be difficult to resist hoping that Trump gets elected this November to allow many of the Democrats’ worst initiatives be left to die on a withering vine. (Examples of the worst: Congress-bypassing regulations designed to penalize production of gas-powered cars and outlaw certain freelance or contract work.)

Still, the candidate and his party have many flaws.

We cannot forget that. Indeed, with their abandonment of the tiniest desire to reduce the size of the federal leviathan, remembrance should be easy. 

Shrink government? Radically reduce spending? Reduce debt? No such goal was seriously pursued in the first Trump administration, and no such goal is mentioned in the twenty-point Trump-Republican Party platform.

There’s talk of tax cuts, ending inflation (somehow), diverting spending from Democratic projects. Sure. But the platform insists that Social Security and Medicare programs not be modified in any way. 

In any way!

And about Obamacare — the biggest expansion of the medical state in recent years, which Republicans had once pledged to repeal — the platform is mute.

The 2016 platform said that improving healthcare “must start with repeal of the dishonestly named Affordable Care Act of 2010: Obamacare,” a declaration retained in 2020. Now it’s gone. Republicans seem to have succumbed to the strategy of turning Obamacare into yet another supposedly unassailable, supposedly inextirpable entitlement program.

Unfortunately, you don’t recover or expand liberty by accepting every expansion of serfdom.

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
crime and punishment election law national politics & policies

Serious Times

Donald Trump, shooting, assassination, media

Former President Donald Trump came a half-inch from being assassinated on Saturday. Thank goodness he’s alive. 

Let’s reflect for a moment on what would have happened to our country had Mr. Trump not turned his head slightly just before the bullet hit his right ear. 

Potentially serious violence and unrest? Even if the sorrow, despair, and anger millions would feel at having their presidential candidate murdered in cold blood were to be completely peacefully received, what is the takeaway? 

It is destructive. We are less free if political power is dictated by the barrel of a gun. And it is the government’s job to prevent that from happening. 

Political talking heads are calling for a different tone and I’m all for that, so far as it goes. But it is a vague concept that no one agrees upon. And the answer certainly isn’t less freedom of speech. 

“You know the political rhetoric in this country has gotten very heated,” President Biden told the nation last night. “It’s time to cool it down.” 

I think, instead, it is time for Mr. Biden to turn up the heat: on the Secret Service. 

This weekend’s deadly* shooting represents an epic failure. To allow a would-be assassin to climb onto the roof of a building 140 yards away, a rifle in hand and in line of sight of a former president giving a speech, demonstrates an incredible level of incompetence. 

Heads must roll at Secret Service. (Figuratively.) A new and beefed-up detail should be protecting Trump. And it is past time for RFK, Jr., to be granted Secret Service protection as well.

I don’t say this often but . . . spend the money! 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

* Corey Comperatore, a father sheltering his family with his body, was struck by a bullet and killed. Two others were seriously injured by the gunfire. Also, the shooter was killed by Secret Service snipers. 

PDF for printing

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

Categories
crime and punishment election law partisanship

Threshold Crossed

Donald Trump, indictments, convictions, law, court, judge

We’ve seen many sad days for our republic. But now the country has crossed a certain horrible threshold of banana-republic-hood.

Guided by a corrupt judge, a New York City jury has found former President Trump guilty of all 34 of the District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s bogus charges. Something or other to do with Stormy Daniels, an alleged affair, paying off an extortionist, federal election laws, and bookkeeping.

With Trump targeted by so many show trials launched solely to punish his ascendancy and prevent his reelection, chances were that at least one of these elephantine efforts would extract a conviction. Even people lousy at darts hit the dartboard sooner or later if they throw a thousand darts.

As Katie Pavlich notes, during the trial prosecutors didn’t “focus on proving the fraud charges” but on “hush-money payments” and “irrelevant salacious details of an alleged affair.” Who needs a definable crime when Being Trump is crime enough?

The verdict made one reader at Instapundit “realize just how dependent the Democrats have become on appearing legitimate. Where there is no substance, form must take precedence. [So we’re] offered oppression as ‘democracy’ and Stalinist show trials as ‘justice.’”

There are so many irregularities in the charges and the conduct of the trial that the verdict is bound to be overturned on appeal.

By some court. Somewhere. No?

But the damage has been done. The worst politicos and operators are now high-fiving each other, little caring about implications and long-range effects. As if they cannot see the next step. 

As if they cannot see they are behaving like the caciques of a banana dictatorship.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with ChatGPT4o and Firefly

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

Categories
crime and punishment media and media people partisanship

So Low

Fareed, Trump

“I have to admit: none of this is playing out like I thought it would,” Fareed Zakaria told viewers of his CNN program last weekend.

“Trump is now leading in almost all the swing states,” Zakaria noted, adding that he is “someone worried about the prospects of a second Trump term.”

The host’s opening monologue on Fareed Zakaria: GPS went on, complaining that, “The trials against [Trump] keep him in the spotlight, infuriate his base — who see him as a martyr and even may serve to make him the object of some sympathy among people in general who believe that his prosecutors are politically motivated.”

Leave it to the Democrats to turn Mr. Trump into a sympathetic figure . . . with Zakaria then agreeing that these prosecutions are politically motivated.

“This happens to be true, in my opinion. I doubt the New York indictment would have been brought against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump.”

And Fareed is not alone, even at CNN, where Elie Honig also acknowledged that, had the prosecution been brought in a less rabidly Democrat area than New York City, “there’s no chance of a conviction.”

No statement is more compelling in a court of law than what is known as a statement against interest, the admission of facts that do not serve the person so conceding or that person’s side. That’s what we now witness . . . as even CNN commentators recognize that the former president is being politically railroaded.

No one is above the law. That phrase loses some punch, however, when “the law” sinks so low.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

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

Categories
ideological culture partisanship political challengers

Among the Ungovernable

What is the Libertarian Party up to in inviting former President Donald John Trump to address the party’s upcoming national convention?

The goal of this “third party” may be crystalline in its clarity — a free society as understood by Libertarians — but how this can be achieved by running candidates for office in Partisan Duopoly America is murky at best. The number of self-identified libertarians in the country is small, though polling in the 1990s suggested that about a quarter of the population is of a general libertarian mindset: minimal government; private property; personal freedom as the tolerant community’s ideal; individual responsibility as the chief form of social regulation.

The difference between a self-identified Libertarian and a libertarian-ish citizen at large can be huge, in some ways: no taxes versus lower taxes, for example. These positions play dramatically differently, of course, in elections where most voters are not libertarian at all.

The 2024 convention will be held May 23–26 in Washington, D.C. (of all places). And Donald Trump (of all people) has accepted the invitation to speak (offered to both he and President Biden). The party is shilling registrations for the event by telling prospects that only registered attendees will be able to cast their votes to establish “the topics President Trump will address during his time at the podium.”* 

As a newsworthy event, this is one of the party’s best stunts. The very idea of inviting the presumptive Republican nominee to speak is . . . weird. And, therefore, newsworthy. It might make for an apocalyptic event — encompassing every meaning of “apocalyptic.”

The convention itself is titled, in traditionally flagrant Libertarian fashion, “Become Ungovernable.” While Libertarians mean this slogan in a good (and peaceful) way, its ambiguity and alarming nature is one of many reasons Libertarians get low vote totals. 

Trump addressing Libertarians could suggest a more negative interpretation of “ungovernable.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Good luck with that.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

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

Categories
national politics & policies partisanship

Hypocrisy’s Cash Value

Donald Trump, Joe Biden, court, campaign contributions

“If these corrupt Democrats didn’t have HYPOCRISY,” the Republican National Committee explained, “they’d have NOTHING!”

After months of Biden surrogates savaging former President Donald Trump for the dastardly deed of using campaign monies to cover his mounting legal fees from the plethora of trumped-up indictments brought by partisan Democratic prosecutors, it turns out the Democrats have been doing the same thing.

The BBC noted: “Democratic donors paid at least $1.7m (£1.35m) of U.S. President Joe Biden’s legal fees during the investigation into his handling of classified documents, records show.”

“We are not spending money on legal bills or hawking gold sneakers,” Rufus Gifford, finance chair of the Biden campaign, told MSNBC only days before the news broke.

Highly questionable that Biden could sell anyone a sneaker, but the other claim was a provable lie.

“The use of party funds to cover Biden’s legal bills is not without precedent and falls within the bounds of campaign finance law,” the Associated Press article quickly informed, before adding that it “could cloud Biden’s ability to continue to hammer former President Donald Trump over his far more extensive use of donor funds to cover his legal bills.”

How unfortunate! The hypocrisy could ruin the piling on by Democrats.

“Democrats say the cases are nothing alike,” The Washington Post reported.

“There is no comparison,” offered a Democratic National Committee spokesman. “The DNC does not spend a single penny of grass-roots donors’ money on legal bills, unlike Donald Trump, who actively solicits legal fees from his supporters . . .”

Let’s get this straight: the difference is that Trump is upfront in asking his middle-class supporters for help, while Biden’s money came surreptitiously from wealthy Democrats?

This must be the proverbial dime’s worth of difference between the parties.

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
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom

Richly Revealing

Donald Trump, gag order, censorship, courts, indictment

There is something rich in the latest gag order placed on Mr. Trump.

“Former President Donald Trump on March 27 criticized the New York judge overseeing his ‘hush money’ case and criticized the judge’s daughter,” explains Jack Phillips of The Epoch Times, “just hours after the judge handed down a gag order against him.”

Richly . . . ironic? 

Apt? 

Idiotic?

“This Judge,” the former president wrote on his own social media site, “by issuing a vicious ‘Gag Order,’ is wrongfully attempting to deprive me of my First Amendment Right to speak out against the Weaponization of Law Enforcement, including the fact that Crooked Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, and their Hacks and Thugs are tracking and following me all across the Country, obsessively trying to persecute me, while everyone knows I have done nothing wrong!”

To them, Orange Man’s very existence is “wrong,” and the thing they most want is Trump to shut up. So, in the course of a trial upon a subject combining campaign finance regulations with more prurient interests, a judge gagging the defendant from speaking in public about his prosecutors is . . . well, convenient. For them. 

The prosecution is arguably an attempt to silence Trump; gag orders remove doubt. And allow the Empire State to exact the punishment before the trial concludes.

The prosecutors and politicians and major media propagandists who are aghast at Trump’s charges aren’t exactly saying that what Trump says about the judge’s daughter (that she “represents Crooked Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, and other Radical Liberals”) is false. 

They object . . . because . . . what he says makes them look bad.

And what they are trying to do is make Trump look bad.

Just rich. 

With meaning. 

More philosophically minded folks say we have a crisis of meaning these days. I don’t know. I see meaning everywhere!

But it’s not always meaning we like.

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
crime and punishment partisanship

Caveat Preemptive

Donald Trump

Were Donald J. Trump an exemplar of strict Kantian honesty; had he a reputation for exactitude about his achievements and acumen; if hyperbole had not become his own very public modus — then, and only then, would the near half a billion judgment against him make even a modicum of sense.

But the former U.S. president and infamous branding entrepreneur is and has always been known to be something of a b.s. artist. No one has excuse to take what he says literally. Business partners and all who make deals with Trump should do their own diligence. Their watchword should be: caveat emptor.

Yet, last week, New York State regulators and prosecutors bent over backwards to find Trump guilty. “On Friday, New York County Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Donald Trump to pay a staggering $355 million for repeatedly inflating asset values in statements of financial condition submitted to lenders and insurers,” explains Jacob Sullum of Reason. “When the interest that Engoron also approved is considered, the total penalty rises to $450 million. All told, Trump and his co-defendants, including three of his children and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, are on the hook for $364 million, or about $464 million with interest.”

That is a lot of money to protect other businesses from Trump’s characteristic exaggerations, which so appalled the court. But not any of the banks Trump did business with.

No one has been harmed, for Trump repaid all the loans.

There is no victim — making Trump the biggest-name victim of victimless crime prosecution of all time.

We, the people, know that “honesty is the best policy” is not standard business practice, and that Trump doesn’t always follow it. But we are also not demanding that our governments insert themselves into every successful transaction looking for fibs and fakery.

That would be a recipe for selective prosecution.

Which is just what this case is: selective prosecution of a political opponent.

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
ballot access partisanship

Enthusiasm for Extremism in Action

Donald Trump, TDS, voting, election

She insists it’s about the rule of law. And not political. Not in any way.

“Maine Secretary of State Claims Politics Played ‘No Role’ in Booting Trump Off Ballot,” is how The Epoch Times headlined the story.

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows has unilaterally barred former President Donald Trump from the Maine presidential primary ballot. As in the Colorado case, the excuse rests with the January 6, 2021, protest rally and mob entrance into the capitol building. She says that “the weight of evidence” she “reviewed indicates that it was an insurrection.” 

Knowing what real insurrections are, and what words mean, and the long history of protests that get out of hand, including in recent times, most non-partisan people, as well as all Trump supporters, must conclude just the opposite: no insurrection was even attempted.

Bellows may actually believe that the January 6 events constituted an insurrection, that her job allows her to do what has never been done in American history, and that this would be good for the nation.

On the insurrection issue, she and Democrats rely upon motivated reasoning. People worked up in a cause can believe almost anything that would aid the cause. Still, the common-sense guess is that almost no one really believes her . . . but of course her Democratic comrades must pretend.

On the scope of her position, prudence would usually steer a partisan such as herself away from doing such a radical thing.

On the good of the nation, the clear hyperpartisan appearance would exacerbate tensions around the country, widening the divide into a chasm.

What may really be in evidence, though, is that leftists are mimicking the radicalism of the pandemic lockdowns, driven by the sheer frenzy of their vision of themselves as embodiments of righteousness . . . always to exercise arbitrary power.

An enthusiasm that spreads virally. As a mania. 

Thus does extremism work.

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