Big news from Colorado:

The United States was founded in response to tyrannical actions by the government of Great Britain: its increasingly intrusive taxes, mandates and prohibitions.

As students of history, the Founders understood that tyranny — the routine use of government power to violate rather than protect individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — is a constant threat. They counseled eternal vigilance against this threat.

Bad advice, says President Obama.

Obama seems to think (à la certain notions of Rousseau) that tyranny ain’t really tyranny if you participate, however nominally, in the political processes that spawn the tyranny. So he instructs a 2013 graduating class to ignore those who warn that tyranny is “always lurking just around the corner.”

“You should reject these voices . . . because what they suggest is that our unique and creative and brave experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”

Come again, Mr. President?

The American republic was built on mistrust. There have to be checks and balances for a republic to work, and skepticism is key to the whole experiment. The “self-rule” idea becomes a sham precisely when we pretend that people with power can always be trusted.

Obama wants the young people he’s addressing to ignore any evidence of present or impending tyranny. Don’t be fooled by people who point to this evidence! Reject these voices! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

That citizens inertly obey such instructions is certainly in the interest of all aspiring tyrants.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

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.

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.

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.