Judging from the comments on my most recent post, a non-trivial number of IVN Facebook followers believe that the United States should lead the way in eradicating Islam from the earth—preferably with nuclear weapons. Whatever the merits of such a proposal may be, let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s just not going to happen.

Two days after a deadly shooting took place at the Paris headquarters of the French satirist magazine, Charlie Hebdo, unconfirmed reports indicate the three gunmen suspected of the shooting were killed in two separate police raids on Friday.

According to early reports from French media, standoffs with French authorities resulted in two hostage situations at different locations; a printing warehouse in Dammartin-en-Goele (a town about an hour north east of Paris), and a kosher market in porte de Vincennes inside Paris.

To all those media outlets who have convinced themselves that they don’t need to publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Mohammed in reporting the recent events in Paris: you are profoundly wrong.

Your raison d’etre is to present news. The Hebdo cartoons are a natural part of the story of the murders in Paris. To assert that a description of an image is anything like the image, itself, is a rationalization of cowardice. The only reason to “describe images” without publishing them is fear of the consequences of publishing.

"That if all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed." -- Benjamin Franklin, "Apology for Printers"

In light of current events in Paris, I finally turn my attention to Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, and what he could teach us about a free press.

This week’s attack on the Paris newspaper Charlie Hebdo by violent Islamicists was a great tragedy and an unspeakable outrage. It was a vile, evil action by people who are not fit to live in human society. We must always condemn, in every way possible, the slaughter of human beings. Full stop.

RANCHO SANTA FE, Calif. -- As those of you who are familiar with my work already know, I examine our government from an unusual perspective; one that assumes that it must follow the Constitution. Accordingly, I respect proposed solutions that adhere to that premise while forcing us into the uncomfortable realm of hosting “a civil assessment” of their merit. In that regard, I offer the suggestion of Scot Faulkner to bypass this year’s State of the Union Address.

Is it not frustrating, depressing, and sometimes infuriating to observe the typical "career politician" hard at work? Such elegant and manipulative ways with lingual sophistry coupled with elitist and aristocratic mannerisms?

This is not to say there are no just politicians with character and integrity who are selfless and truly believe in the greater good.