Categories
Accountability First Amendment rights government transparency

Overly Broad Stonewalling

How specific do requests for records of unconstitutional activity have to be?

In February, the Federal Bureau of Investigation pretended an inability to fulfill America First Legal Foundation’s freedom-of-information request for documents about the FBI’s pre-election efforts to censor Twitter users. The agency declared the request to be “overly broad.”

What’s been “overly broad” is the policy of censorship, disinformation, and more by the Deep State using private partners. Meaning their real problem is doubtless that the requested documents are “overly incriminating,” too unmistakably what AFL wanted.

So the FBI stonewalled. 

And AFL has sued, in its complaint concluding that the agency’s “blanket denial of AFL’s FOIA request is contrary to law and should not stand.”

Thanks to evidence brought to light by other litigation and by Matt Taibbi’s reporting on Twitter’s internal records, none of us is just guessing that the FBI has acted to censor constitutionally protected discourse. We know that the FBI’s National Election Command Post flagged at least 25 Twitter accounts for “misinformation.”

But the only party to the censorship revealing relevant information voluntarily is Twitter itself, thanks to decisions by Twitter’s new management under Elon Musk.

With respect to everybody else colluding to censor social media — the FBI, the DOJ, the White House, Google, Facebook, etc. — looks like it’ll have to be lawsuits every step of the way.

The First Amendment’s stricture upon Congress to “make no law” abridging our “freedom of speech, or of the press,” does not allow the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and other agencies to simply subcontract. Nor are they free to mold public opinion. 

A government-controlled “press” is not a free press.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai and DALL-E2

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs

Lack of Intelligence?

The quick collapse of the Afghan government and the takeover of the entire country by the vicious and barbaric Taliban was no intelligence failure, as Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) ridiculously charged Sunday.

U.S. intelligence officials had informed the Biden Administration, as well as previous ones, of the inevitable consequences.

Nor is this mess in any way a failure of the US military.

It is a political failure, through-and-through. 

While the withdrawal* could have been handled far better, the big mistake was thinking — for even a nanosecond — that we could remake Afghanistan into a pillar of freedom and democracy. 

Or anything remotely close.

The U.S. has been there for two decades, our longest war, and could have stayed another hundred years . . . and still, when we left, this would be the result. 

As this commentary warned repeatedly.**

I have come to support U.S. alliances with free peoples, within limits . . . the key limit being the American people’s degree of commitment. Such alliances would be more sustainable than our current role as world policeman, better protecting freedom from the admittedly serious danger presented by China and Russia, two exceedingly bad actors. 

We can occupy unfree peoples — for example, the Afghans — perhaps forever if we are willing to expend the blood (our sons and daughters) and treasure, but neither the U.S. nor any other country has shown the capability to remake peoples or nations. 

Liberation is beautiful. But if forced, it won’t take

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* The U.S. Government bears some responsibility not to get people who work with it killed. We all seem to agree on that, even if we don’t agree on other issues regarding such interventions. So why does our government facilitate the placing of a price on many people’s heads and then cut and run without taking care to protect them? This is not a demand for perfection. But how about some quick visa paperwork and the offer of flights out of Afghanistan? In fact, fill out the stupid paperwork on the flight over here. 

** In 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, etc.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs

Trumping China?

“You may not like Donald Trump,” argues Dr34mLucid in his latest video on YouTube and Facebook, “but he is the most vocal and has taken the most action in containing China. That is a fact.” 

Dr34mLucid is Christopher Raymond Hall, who claims to be “made in Britain, schooled in the U.S., assembled in Taiwan, hardened by China, currently broadcasting from London.” His video, “Trump or China, unite or fall,” created with Dr. Lai from the Sci-tadel channel, is full of worries . . . about “attitudes to China in the West.” 

The two YouTubers are troubled that “the West has done its best to ignore” the library of crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese Communist Party. Recognizing that “China has very real ambitions to become THE world superpower,” they ask, “What kind of world would that look like?”

“China invading Taiwan is a very real risk,” insists Dr34mLucid. “The weaker the West becomes the higher the chance of Xi Jinping making a move on Taiwan. . . . with the riots in the US . . . now is an excellent time for Xi to invade.”

“If you think Hong Kong looks bad,” he offers, “wait until they get to Taiwan.” 

“We shouldn’t be waiting until they get to Taiwan,” replies Dr. Lai. 

Dr34mLucid and Dr. Lai applaud President Trump for standing up to China and for Taiwan. But they fret about his unpopularity. 

“I doubt many people would support Trump if he decided to defend Taiwan,” notes Dr34mLucid. “I doubt they would miss the chance to call him interfering or an imperialist.”

Opposition to totalitarian China and support for free and democratic Taiwan should unite the free world. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 


Note: In the video, Dr. Lai recounts that President Trump called Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen after his 2016 victory. It was actually Pres. Tsai who phoned to congratulate Mr. Trump.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Democratic Dreams

On Wednesday, I said we should, to borrow the vernacular, “have a conversation” about a national referendum.

Billionaire investor, environmentalist, and Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer proposed the idea, which I’ve loved conceptually since my friend, former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel (also a Democratic presidential candidate), first advocated it decades ago.

But that ol’ devil — he’s in the details. (Decidedly not the latest lingo.) What might a national initiative and/or referendum process look like?

Given that it would require a constitutional amendment — meaning ratification by 38 of the 50 states — the process must win broad support to be enacted.

Here’s what I propose: Allow any statutory initiative measure to be petitioned onto a federal General Election ballot with signatures equaling 6 or 8 percent of the country’s population* and as verified by election officials in each state. Require a concurrent majority, whereby for a measure to pass it must garner not only a majority of the vote nationally, but also a majority vote in at least 20 states — or even in a majority of the states.

An initiative proposing a national constitutional amendment should do more. Require, say, a petition signature threshold of 10 or 15 percent and not merely a majority of the vote nationally to pass, but mirroring the current amendment process, mandate a majority in each of at least 38 states.

If U.S. Term Limits is successful in getting 34 states to call a convention to propose an amendment for congressional term limits, a national referendum process could follow in those footsteps. 

Talk about two ideas that will pop blood vessels in the heads of professional politicians and their special interest cronies!

Dare to dream.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


 * This should simply follow the figures of the most recent census, of course.

PDF for printing

US, United States, national referendum, initiative, voting, democracy, elections,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights free trade & free markets general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall nannyism national politics & policies privacy property rights Second Amendment rights Tenth Amendment federalism too much government U.S. Constitution

Winning Too Much?

“We’re Number 17!!!”

This lacks a certain triumphant note.

It is nothing like the “We’re Number 1!” the Swiss are now hollering as they pump their arms into the air, waving giant #1 foam fingers against the backdrop of snow-covered Alps.

Actually, knowing the Swiss, they are probably a bit more restrained. Still, you get the point.

Number 1 in what, you ask? Creamy, delicious chocolate, perhaps? Banking? Skiing?

Freedom.

The Human Freedom Index 2017, jointly published by the institutes Cato, Fraser, and Liberales, is hot off the presses. The report ranks the countries of the world on “personal, civil, and economic freedom.”

This year, Switzerland switched places with Hong Kong, which had come in first the year before. The U.S. moved up from 23rd place in 2016, but down from 2008, when we were challenging Top 10 status at Number 11.

“Weak areas [for the U.S.] include rule of law, size of government, the legal system and property rights,” according to a Cato video.

Let’s compare Switzerland to the United States. The 1848 Swiss Constitution creates 26 sovereign cantons (states), greatly influenced by our system of federalism. In the 20th century, Americans in 26 states and most localities borrowed from the Swiss, establishing a system of direct democratic checks on government — what we call ballot initiatives and referendums.

Both countries have constitutional limits on government, protecting individual rights — even from fully democratic tyranny. But in the freest nation in the world, Switzerland, citizens possess a powerful direct democratic check on their government at all levels . . . while we do not.

After all, we’re Number 17.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

 

Categories
general freedom individual achievement meme national politics & policies responsibility

NOT the Impossible Dream

The American Dream is dead.

Has been for at least a year . . . or so we’re told:

  • “American Dream Dead,” said the Huffington Post
  • “The American Dream is out of reach,” CNN Money
  • “The American Dream is Dead, and Good Riddance,” according to a column by Keli Goff at the Daily Beast.

Golly. Have a great July 4th holiday . . . I guess.

That 2014 CNN Money poll found 59 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: “The American dream has become impossible for most people to achieve.”

What is “the American Dream”? What do folks mean when they speak of it?

Historian James Truslow Adams coined the phrase in his 1931 book, The Epic of America:

The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.

Note that Adams wrote of “opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.” He didn’t say “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”

He didn’t suggest a dream world wherein government would wave a magic wand to bestow financial success upon everyone, program by program. In fact, Adams embraced a land of capitalism, but without the cronyism — thus, with some significant measure of equality of opportunity.

President Obama also addressed the American Dream in his 2014 State of the Union speech, only with a different tone. It had “suffered some serious blows,” he summarized. “Over more than three decades, even before the Great Recession hit, massive shifts in technology and global competition had eliminated a lot of good, middle-class jobs, and weakened the economic foundations that families depend on.”

Surely Mr. Obama isn’t so economically brain-dead as to think that the computer revolution, the information revolution, and the communications revolution were terrible scourges on mankind that cost jobs. Mr. Progressive-in-Chief, these “shifts in technology” amount to what’s commonly called “progress.”

Yet, Mr. Obama, like most politicians, has only one thought: how to turn talk of the American Dream into snake oil he can sell politically — to achieve his own dreams.

He believes our dreams depend on him, on bigger and bigger government. There are those who want a government big enough to somehow make all our dreams come true.

And those of us who simply want the freedom to try to fulfill our own dreams. Meaning, usually, we want government out of our way.

America is about individual freedom, all people created equal, pursuing happiness in their own personal ways, so every dream is accordingly different.

But what runs through them all is something to note as this country’s 239th Independence Day approaches:

I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-C-E.

The United States of America was a world-historic innovation in government — it offered an “asylum for mankind,” as Thomas Paine wrote. We declared our independence as a nation so that every man and woman walking this parcel of the earth could likewise declare his or her independence.

The American Dream isn’t, as Adams wrote, “a dream of motor cars and high wages merely,” but of standing on one’s own two feet, making one’s own way in the world, being self-reliant, independent, doing it one’s own way.

Makes me miss Frank Sinatra.

Put another way or three:

  • If your dream is to start a company like Solyndra, taking over $5oo million in subsidies from the taxpayers, it’s just not the American Dream.
  • If you want to live off government programs, rather than your own smarts and achievement, you may have a dream, but it ain’t the American Dream.
  • If you’re just sitting in your boat waiting for the tide to lift you up, you may indeed be dreaming, but it’s not the American Dream.

One doesn’t have to be as successful in business as Bill Gates to achieve it. You could take a vow of poverty and still grasp the American Dream in full.

Life is short. It’s not about amassing the most toys. It’s about freedom, the freedom to pursue your own happiness. And the courage to use that freedom to go for it.

Thats the American Dream.

I have a Common Sense American Dream that my commentaries and the memes and videos we post at ThisisCommonSense.com 365 days a year — and send to tens of thousands by email — will rally the spirit of independence that triumphed more than two centuries ago and is still alive and strong in us today.

Thank you!We cannot do it without your help. I need your support now, on this Independence Day. Please take a moment to make a generous and tax-deductible gift to keep this Common Sense coming to you and a growing audience of active, interested and independent Americans.

Happy Independence Day!

The Dream lives on in you. Now please help us grow our voice and our movement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


P.S. A recent poll now shows that asked a slightly different way, nearly two-thirds of us believe the American Dream is achievable for those that are willing to work for it. Should it be achievable for those unwilling to work for it?

Thank you!

P.P.S. Thank you for helping provide Common Sense to liberty-lovers everywhere. Please give generously. Your one-time contribution of $100, $50, $25 or a monthly pledge of $17.76 makes this program possible.


Printable PDF

Independence Day