Military Guest Commentary: Why I Will Vote Republican

* * * This insightful essay comes from a U.S. officer serving in Iraq. I quite enjoyed it, and hope you all will as well. Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A. * * *

By CPT. Hunter Hawke

The upcoming election is extremely important to everyone, but perhaps especially to members of the military. Thus, as a member of the military, drawing on the sum of my experiences, please allow me to explain why I will be voting Republican.

First, I believe the Democrats’ approach to foreign policy is both naïve and dangerous. Second, I simply do not believe the Democrats can do what they’re promising. They cannot continue to provide for a strong military, pay for their proposed entitlement programs, and not increase taxes. Third, they have not proved that they are capable of managing the military and our foreign policy competently.

To address my first point, I believe that a pragmatic approach to defense and foreign policy is the only reasonable one. My experiences in the military and Iraq specifically have left me doubting the good nature of man. I believe that the nature of man is not inherently good and the world is far more Hobbesian than most people would like to believe. Tribalism, corruption, cronyism, brutality and most every other vice known to man are prevalent throughout large portions of the world. You can see the symptoms of these base instincts in many other countries in the way they treat minority groups, woman, wealth distribution, elections, human rights, the press, the judiciary and so on. The governments of these countries are not equal partners with us, nor do they share the moral high ground. So when I hear the Democratic party in general and Senator Barrack Obama in particular talk about how we need to redefine our foreign policy by reaching out to these governments and people without these things in mind, it makes me ill.

The Democrats cite our standing in the court of world public opinion as evidence of the Bush administration’s disastrous handling of foreign policy. I think what they fail to understand is that the world is full of countries that would love nothing more than to see the end of American hegemony, be it economically, politically, or militarily. Some of their motives are not nefarious but rather that of a competitor. But what of those states who wish something else, something more sinister? An expansive Russia, a nuclear Iran, a radical Pakistan? Even today Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, Venezuela, and countless others would love nothing more than to see an end to American hegemony. And who would suffer? Maybe we won’t, at least in the near term. But minority populations would suffer. Political dissenters would suffer. And American values such as woman’s rights, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, and countless other values we hold dear would suffer. So to say that we are unpopular and use this as reasoning to fundamentally change our foreign policy is ridiculous. The question should be: are we doing what is morally correct?

What the Republicans have done and I strongly support is to undertake a program of aggressive engagement in foreign policy. Our military assistance abroad is a perfect example. Isolationism is no longer an option because power and influence have become a zero sum game. If we are not exerting influence or spreading American values, someone else is spreading theirs and it is to our collective detriment. We exert our influence, not to pander to our enemies, but to influence other countries to become something else, something better.

For example, over the last several years, we’ve undertaken a massive effort to combat AIDS in Africa and we’ve established an independent African military command to bolster the security of that continent. What we’ve done in Columbia is another example. I know a couple of guys who’ve spent years in Columbia training their Special Forces and intelligence organizations. What is underpublicized is the fact that the FARC, the strongest, most well equipped and well financed terrorist revolutionary organization in the western hemisphere, is now on the verge of total collapse. We didn’t negotiate with them; we defeated them.

A more specific example would be the rescue of Ingrid Betancourt as one of the culminating efforts of years of military assistance in Columbia. All of the resolutions in the parliaments of Europe, declarations of solidarity, and high level negotiations yielded nothing. She was rescued because the United States had aggressively supported the Columbian government for years. Now the Bush administration is trying to use Columbia as a template for the rest of South America and Africa. So it comes as no surprise that the countries most fearful and vocal about American power, like Venezuela, are also the ones who stand to lose.

That these countries stand up in the United Nations and decry our efforts around the globe is not only unsurprising but a testament of the great things we’re doing. Will we choose to ignore the world’s problems until they come knocking on our door? And what about the rest of the world? What are we going to do to ensure the security and prosperity of our allies and the innocent? Will we abandon them to appease our critics?

The Democrats offer the idea of soft power and negotiation as a means to accomplish our goals. But I would argue that soft power in a globalized world is largely a fraud because economic interdependence has made it increasingly difficult to employ. The Europeans refuse to stand up to Russia over the conflict with Georgia because Russia supplies most of their oil and natural gas. The Chinese oppose any intervention in the Sudan on the part of the United Nations because Sudan is one of their key trading partners. Are we going to abandon our allies and allow innocent people to be butchered because soft power is insufficient?

Europe, the center of soft power, is great at exercising their rhetorical skills, but what have they done for the people in Afghanistan, Columbia, Georgia, Darfur, and countless other countries? They can’t even send their own soldiers and humanitarian aid around the world unless it’s on board a US Navy destroyer or in an American C-130. The Europeans obviously lack the intestinal fortitude to do anything more than talk about their high ideals. That these same Europeans fall all over themselves to hear Sen. Obama speak should cast some doubt on their overwhelming support for him. Additionally, few of our allies have the resources or the commitment to do what we can. So it is left to the United States.

The Democrats say that we’re being too aggressive, but what’s the alternative? Certainly they offer nothing beyond soft power, rhetoric, and action in the United Nations. There are quite a few nations who stand to lose if we continue on our current path but I don’t believe we have another choice. These issues are too important and the consequences too grave to leave to a party that lacks the courage to do the right thing.

This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the Democrats seemingly have no foreign policy goals beyond increasing our popularity abroad and maintaining some form of rudimentary security for the United States. This allows them to focus all of their efforts on their socialist domestic agenda but that’s another topic. The Democrats try to make their point by using Iraq as an example to show the failure of the republican approach. But they have neither a better approach to foreign policy nor a better plan for achieving our strategic goals.

President Bush was right to depose Saddam, but he went about reaching that objective with disastrous incompetence. Sen. Obama was wrong about the validity of deposing Saddam, in that it was deserving of our efforts, and even more wrong about the surge. If we had pulled out when he wanted and as he vigorously advocated, it would have resulted not only with Iraq being thrown into chaos, but the entire region may have erupted into a more widespread conflict. It also would have been tantamount to the betrayal of all the American service members who fought and died there.

Obama is trying to bolster his credentials to be commander in chief by saying that we’ve been distracted from our primary objective in Afghanistan. I remain unconvinced that he fully intends to follow through with the action plan his rhetoric has endorsed. Afghanistan is a tougher conflict than Iraq and will require additional years to sort out. I very much doubt that he has the spine for a protracted counterinsurgency and, even if he does, I doubt that his party does. At the end of the day, the fundamental difference between the foreign policy approaches of the two parties is that Democrats want to negotiate with our enemies while Republicans want to defeat them.

To address my second point, I have heard nothing from Sen. Obama about the importance he places on supporting the military beyond the opportunities he has to attack Sen. McCain on the topic. Furthermore, I’ve seen the effects of the Clinton administration on the military and I hope to God that it doesn’t happen again. During the Clinton years, budgets dwindled and manpower was slashed. Equipment was refurbished but no new equipment was procured. He took the Army that defeated the fifth largest standing army at the time in 100 hours and gutted it. He used the rational that the peace dividend brought about by winning the cold war more than justified the drawdown. Never mind the increasingly factitious and dangerous world that the fall of the iron curtain left behind.

Clinton and the Democratic Party, past and present, have never paid more than lip service to keeping a strong military. Their base demands expensive entitlement programs and the money has to come from somewhere. They can only raise taxes so much before the consequences, both political and economic, become too great. So the money comes from the most expensive government program that just so happens to be the most politically inconsequential for the Democrats. And since a strong military is not necessary to meet the Democratic foreign policy agenda, the temptation to slash military budgets is simply too great and the military’s ability to meet the enemies of our country suffers as a result.

Finally, I’ll use the Clinton years again to demonstrate that I don’t believe the Democratic Party can properly manage the military or foreign policy. Even more disastrous than the lack of financial and moral support for the military was the effect left by having a weak commander in chief. Because of Clinton’s past and the politics of his party, he could not politically afford to suffer military casualties abroad. This infused in the military a zero tolerance policy on casualties which resulted in an irrational approach to combat. We fight to win, not to avoid casualties. In combat, the mission always comes first and there is no substitute for victory. It might sound cliché but it’s the truth.

It has taken us years to overcome the Clinton mentality, and the last thing I want to see is a democratic administration take us back to the place where they cannot politically afford casualties so we either don’t fight or we do so in a cowardly and inept manner. We retreated from the field of battle in Somalia. We allowed more than half a million people in Rwanda to be butchered. We launched an ineffective and short lived humanitarian mission to Haiti that accomplished nothing. We did nothing to confront the rising threat of Islamic fanaticism. We abdicated our role as the leader of the free world. I do not believe that what we did then was the right thing and I believe that a democratic administration would take us down that same path.

If I had to pick a candidate based on my opinions on the military and foreign policy, without doubt, I would pick John McCain. I voted for him in the 2000 primaries and I think that, as a party, we made a mistake in picking Bush over him. After McCain, I would pick every single other Republican candidate. And after that, I would pick Joe Lieberman. And if I could pick none of the above, I would look into moving to Montana to ride out the coming storm.

Polite Persuasion: What Each Of Us Should Be Doing For John McCain

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends,

A guest at tea informed me that she enjoys our visits because they are among the few chances she gets to discuss politics openly. It seems that she refrains from any mention of politics at work, and even at dinner parties if she is not close to the guests. This disturbs me. How can we expect to win if we refuse to discuss politics for fear of being rude? Can we really expect our liberal friends to understand decent policy on their own? Not when they nominate Barack Obama for president.

Now, do not misunderstand me. As a staunch defender of etiquette, I do not want conservatives out preaching to everyone they meet. That would indeed be rude. Nor do I endorse political conversation if it is likely that you will end up shouting about how stupid the other person is. That could well get you fired. However, it is certainly possible to slip good political information into workplace conversation and unfamiliar social scenes without being boorish. If we intend to win, I think we had best start doing so quickly. Here is how.

As you come into the office and begin settling your things, remark, “Did you see that the Fed has increased its balance sheet by $5 trillion? Inflation is ballooning and we have almost doubled our national debt. Now I hear that Sen. Obama is proposing another $4.3 trillion in spending. Goodness only knows how we are ever going to afford all of this.” Next, you sigh, shake your head, and simply walk off to your office. Inevitably someone will pop his head in to ask where you heard such things. Smile and tell them you will send them a quick email. Just send the URL to the articles and let them chew on the information by themselves.

Later, try remarking that the world leaders are convening a meeting on November 15th to reform the world’s financial markets with a new Bretton Woods Agreement and possibly begin discussing an entirely new currency to replace the dollar. Europe is calling this the death of American Capitalism and the triumph of European style socialism. They are overtly rejecting U.S. leadership and demanding oversight of even our markets. We had best hope whoever wins is able to stand up to this.

Russia, Iran and Qatar are forming a new gas cartel to gain control of energy imports into Europe. This would give these nations enormous control over European affairs, especially since it would be backed by Russia’s formidable military might. At the same time, we have Joe Biden saying that Obama will be immediately tested by our enemies. We had best hope he is up to that immense challenge.

No one needs to wait about to argue. Just walk away and let others come to you. When they do, don’t argue. Just provide information, politely, and with a smile. If the other person becomes testy, shrug and say, “I hope you are right,” then walk away. The point is not to turn our workplaces and social engagements into political debates. The point is just to get people thinking about issues beyond the mindless faith in Obama’s “hope.”

As every conservative knows, hope is not a defense of our interests, and faith alone will not restore our economy. Though we know that Barak Obama is an overt socialist who would weaken us internationally and militarily while redistributing our wealth domestically, we need to do better helping others understand this. Every citizen has a responsibility to this country. If we are not doing everything we can to ensure it is in the best position to face what we know is coming, then we have failed in our responsibility. If we do not speak out in support of the principles we believe in because we cannot figure out how to do so politely and professionally, then we have failed in our duty. If Barack Obama is elected because we conservatives expect someone else to campaign against the socialist nonsense he represents, then we have abdicated our individual responsibility as citizens. As I said, we do not need to preach. We do not even need to argue. We do need to speak up and speak out—every one of us. Time is running out.

Deflation Is Not The Problem: We Face Inflation And Currency Collapse

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends,

The value of the dollar is up, gold is down, and so is oil; stock values have plummeted, and everywhere I hear fretting about deflation. Do not be deceived. It is not deflation, but inflation which has come to plague us. If people fail to understand this point and rely on the dollar, their wealth will be wiped out.

The credit crisis has forced a massive deleveraging process faster than anyone anticipated. As a result, entities are selling anything they can for dollars to pay down debts. This sell off includes gold holdings, which is helping to push the already manipulated prices down further. The deleveraging sales (along with naked short selling) have also crashed stock prices. This has caused speculators to fear deflation rather than inflation and seek dollars rather than assets, and so they have sold off oil, causing a drop in the price. Coupled with the recessionary fears, this has cut demand slightly and OPEC is cutting production. Keep watching. All of this is temporary.

Demand for oil is still growing, even if that growth has slowed somewhat. Even with demand expected down at 86 million barrels per day, that is still more than last year and less than we are expecting for next year. China alone still has an 8% growth rate. We still suffer a supply destruction of 5-8% per year and have no prospects of any major new fields. The value of oil will climb, and it will climb high.

As for our stocks, many are not overleveraged and are quite strong. They should recover nicely from the dumping this liquidation is forcing right now. They will also benefit as Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) has ordered the Justice Department to begin an investigation of the SEC. As a result, the SEC is starting to take action against naked short sellers who have been stealing trillions by selling non-existent stock on the markets. One investment advisor has reported to me that up to 50% of the stock of several major companies currently being traded simply does not exist. Congress is finally beginning to notice this and take aim at these criminal traders who have defrauded both the companies they trade and the investing public in what may be the biggest financial crime we have ever seen. Thus, certain sectors of our economy are still very strong, and with prices so low, it is a good opportunity to buy.

Be very clear about this point: inflation or deflation is determined by increasing or decreasing the money supply; they are not determined by rising or falling prices alone. We are not in deflation simply because of a few momentarily low prices. The Fed is the real worry. It has just added over $5 trillion to its balance sheet. Yes: $5 trillion. We have borrowing and inflation when we should have savings and capital. Our money supply is inflating as if there is no tomorrow. Such a thing has never before been seen in this country. We did see it in the Weimar Republic of Germany, in Argentina, and in the French Revolution, though. In each case, the government inflated the currency to the point of collapse. When the people began to starve, the French Queen was foolish enough to say “Let them eat cake.” She lost her head for it.

When the Fed manages to inject this cash into the market, we will begin to enter hyperinflation. Inflation will far surpass the interest rates for cash and bonds and any savings connected to the dollar will be wiped out. This is why we have seen savvy investors like Warren Buffett move all of their money into the equity of stocks, or into the safety of real money: gold and silver.

This is still a wonderful time for the purchase of gold and silver. The spot prices on COMEX have yet to realize the shortages we are facing. Yet, every dealer I talk to is desperately adding staff to try and keep up with the unprecedented demand. People are now waiting more than twenty minutes just to place an order and then being told they will have to wait anywhere from 3-5 months for delivery. Faced with such shortages, I have seen the price of a 1 oz. gold coin on eBay rise to over $1,500 while the spot price on COMEX lingers at $700 per ounce.

This will not continue. COMEX prices would lead you to believe there is a glut in supply. Yet it is becoming difficult to get gold and silver. It will shortly be even more difficult to get silver as it is a byproduct of lead and zinc mining and those metals are selling below cost, so mines are shutting down. People are beginning to realize that COMEX does not have physical metal to back up its paper contracts and they are demanding delivery. Many investment strategists expect COMEX to default by December. Once that happens, the dollar really does collapse as the price of gold may climb up to $5,000/oz., and silver may shoot to over $100/oz.. At that point, people will either have gold, silver, and stocks, or they will have worthless paper. We are facing inflation, and that is the simple fate awaiting our fiat currency system.

Berg v. Obama Dismissed: Appeal Pending

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

(Update 13 January 2009: Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Click here for the story.)

(For initial story click here)

Judge Surrick has issued a ruling in Berg v. Obama. The Judge has dismissed the case for lack of standing. Berg is immediately appealing.

According to the Court, the claims,

“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”

According to the Judge, even if Obama does not meet the requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, an individual citizen has no right under the Constitution to bring a case requesting enforcement. Rather, according to Surrick, that power is held by Congress alone.

“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

If this decision holds, then there is no way to enforce the Constitutional requirements for the Office of the President and that portion of our Constitution would be rendered fairly meaningless.

Could Obama Be Disqualified From The Election? The Federal Courts Will Decide

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

(For updated information on the Motion to Dismiss, click here)

Honorable Friends,

For those of you unaware, Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Berg further alleges that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status. The case is Berg v. Obama.

It sounds crazy, I know. It becomes even stranger when you realize that Berg is a lifelong Democrat, the former Democratic Chairman of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, an 8-year member of the state democratic committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. This is not a simple crank, and after reviewing the court documents, I believe the case is fairly strong, and has amazing implications.

It revolves around Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution which provides in pertinent part that:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

To better understand the case, I recommend reading the complaint, Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, Berg’s Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and Berg’s Motion for Summary Judgment. You can also read news about the case or donate to the cause by visiting Berg’s webpage.

Of course, the case is still developing and it is doubtful there will be any resolution before the election. If Obama loses the election, the case may be deemed moot and dismissed. If he wins, however, and Berg turns out to be correct, it would mean that we not only elected a man unqualified to hold office under the Constitution – we would have elected an illegal immigrant, who would then be disqualified from serving.

You might be wondering how our officials could have missed something so major. It is easy to do though if you think about it. Obama’s mother certainly used to be an American citizen. When he returned to the U.S. from Indonesia, how many government officials would even think to ask, “While away, did you or your parents happen to renounce your U.S. Citizenship?” It simply would not happen. Our officials would have proceeded as if Obama was a child of a U.S. Citizen. No one would know the truth unless he or his mother willingly revealed the information, or unless they were specifically examining Obama’s background in great detail..

I cannot even imagine the pressure this judge must be feeling, along with the Justices of the Supreme Court who will ultimately hear the appeal. Can you begin to hear the enraged screams of the rioters? Our courthouses will have to turn themselves into fortresses.

El Presidente and I will certainly be keeping a close watch on this fascinating case and provide updates as it develops. For now, however, I will leave you with the most interesting part of Berg’s argument thus far, taken from his Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and appended below.

* * * * * * * * * *

Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about 1966, when Obama was approximately five (5) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, whom she had met at the Hawaii University, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship, when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up residency in Indonesia. Loss of citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1967) required that foreign citizenship be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of their custodial parent. A further issue is presented that Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, either signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son or Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, giving Obama natural Indonesia citizenship which explains the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

Obama admits in his book, “Dreams from my father” Obama’s memoir (autobiography), that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, Lolo Soetoro left Hawaii rather suddenly and Obama and his mother spent months in preparation for their move to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already been enrolled in an Indonesia school and his relatives were waiting to meet him and his mother. Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, could not have enrolled Obama in school unless Lolo Soetoro signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son, which had to be filed with the Government. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of
1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part, State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage; Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002, Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states, “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized [sic] as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian
citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.”

Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once adopted by an Indonesian citizen, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child, Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.

The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s arrival did not allow dual citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama’s mother was required to renounce her U.S. citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian spouse. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions; therefore, in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia, as the citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with Government records.

Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration, attached as EXHIBIT “4”, in which it clearly states Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro,” and lists his citizenship as Indonesian. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, and Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by television show Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher, took the actual footage of the school record. At the time Obama was registered the public schools obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of the student through the Indonesian Government. All Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal
names of all family members.

Since Obama’s birth was legally acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which the evidence attached hereto supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears the status as an Indonesia natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would have been required to file applications with the U. S. State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then Obama is an illegal alien.

Regardless of whether Obama was officially adopted, (which required a Court process), by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, or his birth was acknowledged (which only required the signing of a birth acknowledgement form), by Lolo Soetoro, one of which had to occur in order for Obama to have the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship status listed as “Indonesian”, in either and/or both cases Obama’s name was required to be changed to the Indonesian father’s name, and Obama became a natural citizen of Indonesia. This is proven by the school records in Jakarta, Indonesia showing Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro and his citizenship as Indonesian. Again, the registration of a child in the public schools in Jakarta, Indonesia was verified with the
Government Records on file with the Governmental Agencies.

The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship. In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the United States, Hague Convention of 1930.

In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten
(10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely no way Obama could have ever regained U.S. “natural born” status, if he in fact ever held such. Obama could have only become naturalized if the proper paperwork was filed with the U.S. State Department, in which case, Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship.

Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama was never Naturalized in the United States after his return. Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Obama’s mother did not return with him, and therefore, unable to apply for citizenship of Obama in the United States. If citizenship of Obama had ever been applied for, Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship.

Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981. The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and Pakistan's Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim men--jihadists--from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department's travel ban list for US Citizens. Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian passport would have
success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon "taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state...after having attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1) Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s school record attached as Exhibit “4”.

All That Glitters Is Not Gold: Our Government’s Lies and Manipulations in the Gold Market

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends,

We have all heard the old adage that when the market is down, gold is up. Well, the market is most assuredly down . . . but so are gold prices. Yet, strangely, demand for gold and other precious metals is skyrocketing, while supply is so low that people are being told they may have to wait six months or more for delivery. Even stranger, on eBay, prices for gold and silver coins and bars are well above the price they are being traded at on the commodities exchange in New York. So what is going on? That is the question some of my clients wanted answered as they fretted about their hedge investments. To answer quite simply, our government is actively working to suppress the gold market, and defrauding investors in the process. Now I will tell you why and how.

In the 1930s, we abolished the gold standard. Instead, we now have a fiat currency where money has value only because we say so. This allows the Federal Reserve to adjust the money supply without regard to a set amount of gold. Unfortunately, the Fed abused its power. Thus, every time we faced an economic hurdle, rather than allowing for market corrections, the Fed simply cut interest rates, printed more money, and inflated the problem away. It worked as long as people had faith in the currency.

As this behavior repeated itself over time, the central bank managed to encourage the unrestrained spending and overleveraging that has caused the economic crisis we face today. This time, though, the problem is not going away.

We are facing the accumulation of years of bad policy. People are beginning to see that the nation is so deeply in debt that the only way out is massive inflation and devaluation of the dollar. In an effort to preserve their wealth and hedge against this inflation, they turn to gold. This causes problems for the Fed and the other central banks.

Although our money is no longer backed by gold, the Fed cannot ignore gold entirely. If the value of the dollar drops too fast against gold, people begin to lose faith in the system. They buy gold instead of treasury bonds and the Fed and other central banks would be forced to stop their meddling in the markets and allow the money supply to readjust to the level it should be at. Thus, the Fed and other central banks have coordinated their efforts to prevent this.

First, as gold begins to rise, they release some of their own gold reserves into the market. The flood of new supply pushes down prices and allows them to continue with their operations. Of course, there is a danger. If they do this too often or too openly, people begin to see the manipulation and lose faith in the system. In recent years, as the increasing activity of the central banks has required more extensive manipulation of gold, the central banks have kept their hands clean by turning to private bullion banks. They have actually started paying these banks to lease gold and then sell it short on the market to keep the price down. Naturally, as an attempt to manipulate the currency, this is illegal for private entities — yet it is happening every day at the expense of investors.

Obviously, even the central banks do not have unlimited supplies of gold and cannot keep this up forever. The U.S. government, though, keeps its gold reserves a closely guarded secret and Fort Knox has not been audited since Eisenhower’s time. Yet, given the long waits for delivery and the high price of physical gold on eBay, we know that physical supply is short. So how do they continue to keep the price of gold futures contracts down on COMEX? They use naked short selling.

Few people ever demand delivery while trading on COMEX. Thus, it is remarkably easy to sell off more paper contracts than there is gold to back it. As long as few people demand delivery, the deception works. This, too, is criminal, but the law has not been enforced. We may see that begin to shift soon though. The manipulations have become so extensive that the difference in price between paper trading on COMEX and physical trading on eBay is becoming severe. People are beginning to notice. As early as December, we may see people demanding delivery on their COMEX contracts. When delivery cannot be met, this house of cards the Fed and other central banks have created will crash down.

So the government has fed us gilded lies while poisoning our market and actively undermining our hedge protections against inflation they created. Angry? You should be. But it will continue until we demand that it stop. Do so. First educate yourself. There is no better place to start than with the people at GATA. Then vote with both your money and your ballot. When you buy gold or silver, demand delivery. When you cast your ballot, vote against candidates who have fostered these manipulations and promised more. Vote against candidates who have benefited from the corruption through huge donations from the perpetrators. Vote against Barack Obama.

They Don't Understand Energy: It's a Liquid Fuels Crisis

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

In the last presidential debate, we heard a great deal from the candidates about the "energy crisis," and how they would solve it. They gushed so enthusiastically about wind, solar, biodiesel and nuclear power that you might have thought that the "crisis" we face was a shortage of coal. Of course, we know we have plenty of that, so perhaps they were trying to demonstrate how we could be more environmentally conscientious. What they most assuredly did not do, however, is offer any suggestions for solving the real energy crisis or, more appropriately, the liquid fuel crisis called Peak Oil.

Our cars, trains, ships, and planes, in short the vehicles maintaining our global economy, all run on oil. No number of windmills, solar panels, and nuclear plants will change this. The problem is that oil is running out and becoming more difficult to produce, but demand for oil continues to grow at an alarming rate.

Currently, oil production stands at about 86 million barrels/day. Most long term predictions say that oil demand will reach 125 million barrels/day over the next 20 years. This incredible increase will be pushed not only by continuing growth in the West., but by the rapidly developing economies of Eastern Europe, China, India, and the Middle East.

Unfortunately, we cannot meet the demand. Most of the world's mature oil fields have already peaked in production and have been in decline since 2005. OPEC nations are struggling to simply maintain their current production despite the best efforts of technological improvements in oil extraction which have taken decades to create. If we can believe that we still have 1.2 trillion barrels in proven reserves, then it is likely we can last 5-15 years before demand exceeds supply and oil becomes unavailable at any price. If we reach that point, then the global economy comes crashing to a halt in a disaster which will make our current economic crisis seem mild by comparison.

To avoid this unpleasant fate, the first step is to understand what we are facing. The articles, and interviews of Matthew Simmons, perhaps the leading scholar in this field, would be good places to start. Obviously, we need to find a viable alternative to oil and set up an infrastructure to match. Though there are many theoretical possibilities, none have been perfected for industrialization. To buy ourselves urgently needed time, we will have to drill for any drop of oil we can feasibly access. Unfortunately, it takes about 3-4 years minimum to set up, and most of the rigs we have now are dilapidated. Thus, we are under incredible pressure to increase what oil supplies we do have access to, as well as finding some alternative to oil. If we run out of time, the only option we will have for accessing the oil we need is war, war for a resource the whole world will be seeking.

Though our presidential candidates both seem to have a poor understanding of this issue, Barack Obama is clearly the more dangerous of the two. He opposes expanding drilling domestically and off-shore unless it proves necessary in the future. Just to buy time, we need it now. He also calls for a $1,000 tax rebate to every family for energy costs. Add this to the additional stimulus check he supports for the middle class, huge tax increases on 70% of all businesses, and countless new spending proposals he has refused to cut despite the hard economy. Though he has not said where he intends to get the money for this, I expect him to announce a merger of the Treasury and Hasbro any day now. After all, they can print Monopoly Money far more efficiently than we print dollars, and they will have about the same worth by the time Obama stops spending. Unfortunately, we cannot begin to deal with the liquid fuel crisis if we bankrupt the nation before it even hits.

The Honor Of John McCain

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Several years ago, while on a training mission in the Arizona desert, one of our apache helicopters suffered a malfunction and crashed, killing both pilots, and creating two new widows. One of those widows was part of my family, and we rushed south to support both of them as best we could. Every politician in the state sent letters of condolence; John McCain sent a member of his staff. While others sent sympathy, John McCain’s man asked what he could do to help. We thanked him for the offer, but sent him on his way. The letters stopped coming but John McCain’s man did not. He came to each of the memorial services. He checked in every week. During one of his visits, he heard that these women were having a bit of trouble collecting the benefits from the government. John McCain immediately intervened to solve the problem for these women. They never asked him for the help; he simply gave it. He never asked for thanks or recognition, but they could not be more grateful. This is the honor of John McCain.

John McCain’s support for our men and women in uniform is without peer, and he shares their love of and commitment to this nation. He knows what it is to serve and to suffer. He has done so himself and at great cost. Our service men and women know they can count on John McCain as well. When Bush managed to bungle Iraq, and many talked of pulling back in defeat, our officers and service members spoke to John McCain. Armed only with knowledge of foreign affairs few could rival and his commitment to our troops and this country, he went to Bush with Gen. Petraeus to demand the surge strategy. Bush yielded, the surge has worked, and we are well on the way to victory. This is John McCain.

Though no one person could possibly be a perfect fit for the vast responsibility of the oval office, the President has only two exclusive responsibilities which really matter: foreign policy and the military. In these two areas, there could not be a more perfect candidate than John McCain. He understands foreign affairs as few others do. He is someone committed to supporting and strengthening our nation and its allies — and our allies know they can count on him. He is committed to keeping our military in the very best shape he can manage because he knows, as few others do, the depth of the sacrifice we ask of our troops, and how precious their lives are for their willingness to make it. He will not fail them or fail to defend this nation which they love enough to commit their lives to. That is John McCain.

John McCain has done much to help my family, and indeed this nation, without ever being asked, and with no expectation of reward. I now feel compelled to help him. I know John McCain. I have seen the love he has for this country and its people – not merely in what he says on the campaign or for the cameras – but in what he actually does when few people are watching. He is a man of impeccable honor and honesty. Because of this, I trust him. The power of the executive branch is growing so large that it threatens to overwhelm our Constitution; and our people, fearful of hardship and the economic crisis, seem all too willing to let this happen. Yet, I trust John McCain. I trust that John McCain has such love for this nation that he will defend our rights even when we will not, and even at the expense of his own authority. He has served this country for too long, and through too much suffering for him to consent to anything less. Such is the honor of John McCain.

Donate to the McCain Campaign here.

Free Trade? Obama Doesn't Get It

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

Several months ago, we heard Sen. Barack Obama mention that he might like to renegotiate NAFTA. This caused such a panic in Canada that his campaign called to assure them that Obama was just spouting campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken seriously. Though this is disturbing enough, the topic of free trade agreements came up again at the final debate, and it sounded like the Canadians have good reason to be concerned. Obama stated:

“I believe in free trade. But I also believe that for far too long, certainly
during the course of the Bush administration with the support of Senator McCain,
the attitude has been that any trade agreement is a good trade agreement. And
NAFTA doesn't have -- did not have enforceable labor agreements and
environmental agreements.“And what I said was we should include those and make
them enforceable. In the same way that we should enforce rules against China
manipulating its currency to make our exports more expensive and their exports
to us cheaper.“And when it comes to South Korea, we've got a trade agreement up
right now, they are sending hundreds of thousands of South Korean cars into the
United States. That's all good. We can only get 4,000 to 5,000 into South Korea.
That is not free trade. We've got to have a president who is going to be
advocating on behalf of American businesses and American workers and I make no
apology for that.”

Obama should apologize. He does not believe in free trade any more than he does in domestic capitalism. The concept of free trade requires that one reduce or eliminates tariffs and other government interference from the international market to allow producers to compete so that each nation can find its own competitive advantage and the consumers benefit across the world. It does not mean that you use trade agreements as weapons with which you bully or beat any competitive advantage out of your trading partners.

Obama is upset that our regulations and taxes have made it more expensive to produce cars here in the U.S. than in Korea. Thus, rather than reducing our own costs, he favors tariffs and additional labor regulations that will increase foreign costs and remove any advantage they may have. All this does is make things more expensive for the U.S. consumer, who then cannot afford to buy as many things, causing a net loss in our economy. Removing the tariffs does give the Koreans an advantage in cars, but our gain in lower prices is greater than our loss in jobs. Americans will focus on other industries, which we can produce better here. Over and over, we have demonstrated that free trade produces huge gains in our economy, but Obama wants to replace free trade with universal overregulation and American citizens will pay the price for it.

The Worst Is Yet To Come: Blame Congress--And Obama

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends,

I hope you did not get too excited by the rise in the market yesterday. Our system is nowhere near stable, and even further from recovery. We have not even begun to address the fundamental problems that have come together in this crisis. What we have heard about is a large number of bad mortgage backed securities which created a strain on credit in the banks and spurred Congress to pass the foolish $850 billion bailout. The problem has now bled into the financial paper market, though. Without the financial paper market, and the short term loans it provides institutionally, credit in this country dries up entirely. Thus, the Fed is injecting an additional $1 trillion directly into the commercial paper market to try to keep things flowing. What you have not heard, is how terrifyingly extensive the disease actually is. Just listen to Bud Burrell’s interview to get a good idea.

We now have banks that are hugely overleveraged, often at a rate of more than 40:1 debt to assets. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae actually reached levels of almost 100:1. They also became hugely tied up with bad mortgage backed securities and other credit default swaps of derivatives, as did countless others. As we know, the consequences of this sort of behavior have been severe. However, the damage is much worse than the $850 billion bailout, or even the $1 trillion Fed remedy can handle. Over $58 trillion in derivatives liabilities has already been reported—and that covers only 10% of entities who engage in such trades. We have no idea how deep the poison really goes in the remaining 90%.

On top of this, we also have naked short selling (NSS) running through our ailing market like a fatal cancer. Short selling is where someone leases a security expecting its value to fall. He then sells the security to another. At the end of the lease, he repurchases the security, hopefully at a lesser price than it sold for originally, and returns it to the owner. NSS is similar, except that the seller sells the security before he is sure he can even lease it. As a result, people may pay for a security that cannot be delivered. This practice is illegal, but has not been enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This loathsome practice has contributed to the demise of Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, IndyMac, Lehman Brothers, and AIG. Its practitioners presume to sell stock in these companies without ever obtaining that stock. They then drive down the stock price, often without ever delivering a single stock certificate. The companies collapse -- not from any balance sheet problems -- but from these phantom trades of non-existent stock. It is even happening in commodities such as gold and precious metals, where people are selling ownership certificates without ever having the gold to back it, and the buyer is none the wiser unless he tries to claim the actual gold. As these problems converge now, they have the very real potential of utterly obliterating our economy and the value of the dollar itself.

Does it surprise you that this corruption has grown so large? It should not. Congress has done nothing but encourage it. Congress repealed of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, which allowed for the sale of mortgage backed securities and blurred the line between lenders and investors. They passed Sarbanes-Oxley in 2001, along with mark to market accounting. The hastily crafted Act required hugely expensive accounting processes that did little but drive small business out of public trading while doing nothing to curtail corruption in larger institutions. Mark to market accounting also forced assets to be valued at the last sale of similar type whether or not that sale was representative of the asset in hand, thus skewing valuation. Our government then lifted the leverage rules in 2004. Previously, banks were limited to a ratio of 12:1 debts to assets. With the lifted rules, they ballooned into 40:1 ratios or higher. Next, despite Regulation SHO prohibiting naked short selling the SEC has never enforced it, and even gone so far as to falsify reports playing down the dangers of the practice. Finally, let us not forget all the inflationary tinkering the Fed did to prevent any real adjustment in the market that could have purged these problems before they became behemoths.

The real root of the mortgage problem, though, began with the Community Reinvestment Act of the Carter administration in 1977 and amplified by Clinton in 1995. This encouraged loans to people with no money down, no assets, and no income. It also created the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which has been abused to support the activities of ACORN and its fraudulent voter registration drives. Incidentally, ACORN was also Obama’s first employer. Freddie and Fannie, operating under the goals of this Act, hid their losses through massive corruption. As they cooked the books, they funneled large donations into Congress to fend off oversight and reforms attempted by Bush in 2001 and 2003, and later by McCain in 2005. The second largest recipient of those corrupt donations was Barack Obama, and after only three years in office.

As Burrell notes, the legal system the Congress has created is one ideally designed for organized crime—not free markets. It has created a perfect economic storm that threatens to engulf the whole world. Those responsible for leading us here, especially Sen. Obama, who now presumes to lead us as president, should be held accountable for their reckless and irresponsible actions.

Connecticut Supreme Court Endorses Gay Marriage-But Please Don't Call It Judicial Activism

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends,

The Supreme Court of Connecticut has just issued an opinion in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, approving gay marriage in that state. I have no doubt that I will shortly be hearing a great deal about ‘judicial activism,’ given that both sides use that term whenever they disagree with a decision and neither side seems to know much about what it means. What it should refer to is the improper situation where a judge or panel of judges/justices, rules according to their own policy, independent of constitutional directives. The proper role of our judges for constitutional questions is to look at the law, match it to the constitution, and see if they fit — that is all. That is exactly what the Connecticut Supreme Court has done.

There are a few pertinent factors to keep in mind. First, Article 1 §§1& 20 of Connecticut’s constitution contains guarantees of equal protection and anti-discrimination that go well beyond the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. The Court viewed this issue as a regulation upon sex, and spent the bulk of the opinion analyzing the treatment of Civil Unions verses Marriage under the same level of scrutiny it would use for any other type of sex or gender based legal distinction. Upon finding the legal status of sexual preference to be a sex based suspect class, it found no legitimate state interest whatsoever in granting heterosexual couples marriages while granting homosexual couples civil unions.

The Court was so thorough in this procedural analysis that the decision was downright dull. The opinion carried none of the fascinating historical analysis of marriage one finds in the Massachusetts case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), nor the lively discussions of civil rights in the California case of In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008). The only interesting language for lay people came in a footnote:

15 As one prominent legal commentator has explained in discussing the establishment of civil unions: ‘‘Such a step reduces the discrimination, but falls far short of eliminating it. The institution of marriage is unique: it is a distinct mode of association and commitment with long traditions of historical, social, and personal meaning. It means something slightly different to each couple, no doubt. For some it is primarily a union that sanctifies sex, for others a social status, for still others a confirmation of the most profound possible commitment. But each of these meanings depends on associations that have been attached to the institution by centuries of experience. We can no more now create an alternate mode of commitment carrying a parallel intensity of meaning than we can now create a substitute for poetry or for love. The status of marriage is therefore a social resource of irreplaceable value to those to whom it is offered: it enables two people together to create value in their lives that they could not create if that institution had never existed. We know that people of the same sex often love one another with the same passion as people of different sexes do and that they want as much as heterosexuals to have the benefits and experience of the married state. If we allow a heterosexual couple access to that wonderful resource but deny it to a homosexual couple, we make it possible for one pair but not the other to realize what they both believe to be an important value in their lives.’’ R. Dworkin, ‘‘Three Questions for America,’’ N.Y. Review of Books, September 21, 2006, pp. 24, 30.

The dissenting opinions did not limit their most interesting prose to footnotes, but spoke eloquently of the tradition of marriage having long been between a man and a woman. They also mentioned that only heterosexual unions can produce children, and argued that the state has an interest in that procreative function. I know that many laypeople feel very strongly about both of these arguments. Unfortunately for them, as the majority pointed out, neither argument carries any legal weight.

Though traditions are often cherished, as the majority points out, they carry no weight in their existence alone. If they did, we would still have laws forbidding interracial marriages and wives would still be regarded as property interests of their husbands. In order for tradition to hold up under law, it must have a valid reason for its existence beyond the religious convictions of some faiths. As the Court could not find any such reason, they could not uphold tradition for its own sake alone. However, keep in mind that we are talking only about civil marriages; all Churches and faiths remain free to define sacramental marriage as they see fit.

The argument regarding procreation likewise fails. In this country, though marriage itself is ancient, our concept of it has changed frequently over the years. Over time, our courts have decided that valid civil marriages do not require procreation, or sexual intercourse, or even cohabitation. It is well settled that civil marriages exist primarily to facilitate personal companionship — and our right to define the nature of that companionship on an individual level has been declared as fundamental by our courts — the state merely provides a bundle of rights which accompany the status.

After reading the opinion, I am convinced the decision fits squarely with the extraordinarily broad guarantees of the state constitution, and is not a product of judicial activism. Indeed, because it is so heavily focused on procedural analysis under sex discrimination, it may be the least judicially active gay marriage case we have seen.

Getting the Government We Deserve: What The Government Should Do And Which Candidate Will Do It

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends,

Yesterday, I was chatting about the state of our nation with a friend of mine serving as an Army Captain in Iraq. When I asked how he thought the elections would turn out, he made an ominous statement: "People generally get the government they deserve." Goodness help us if that is true. Just look at what our government is doing right now!

To perhaps no one's surprise save Congress and the Fed, the market sank still further yesterday and today. The Fed has begun to authorize up to $1 trillion to be used to help 'stabilize' the commercial paper markets and short term loans. Money Morning's Shah Gilani has a good explanation of this problem. He also has a bit to say on why the new rate cut won't be effective. Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now trying to push another $150 billion dollar 'stimulus' spending package. This bailout, she says, would be sent to help individual taxpayers. Do not expect it to stop there, though. AIG has already spent its way through almost all of its bailout money, and as we have already pointed out, the latest $850 billion bailout was nowhere near enough to cover all the bad debt sitting on the market, so we can expect another massive bailout package, this time probably including a citizen's stimulus check, sometime shortly after the elections. Much as the Speaker, Congress, and the President seem to think this is helpful, though, nothing could be further from the truth.

After my last few posts deriding the bailout, I received several letters asking what I thought the government should be doing to help. After all, these problems are severe and the collapse of the commercial paper market sounds especially dangerous. Isn't it good that the government is propping it up as a last resort? No, and it won't work. As I have stated before, this massive spending, none of which we actually have, just drives up inflation and devalues the dollar. It also massively increases our debt. That debt is already so large, though, that it is becoming clear that the only way we can pay it off may be to inflate it away. That reality is weighing heavily on our lenders, and they are far less willing to lend to us at all. Of course, that means inflation (money printing) is the only alternative we have to pay for these expenditures.

We are already dangerously close to collapsing the value of the dollar through inflation. Lower interest rates much more and that is exactly what will happen. Raise interest rates, though, and we will cripple the financial markets as the costs of doing business climb. Yet, we have to do one of the two in order to continue making these bailouts and propping up failed institutions. Of course, that also continues to lock up our capital in poisonous systems. By pouring money into these institutions, we prolong their existence and prevent their assets from being sold off, allowing them, over time, to slowly try to remove the poisonous assets (derivatives and other bad mortgage backed securities) from their books. Naturally, that means we often have to wait years, and continue to spend trillions, to facilitate that unnatural process. We then have to spend more years recovering from the inflationary damage we have done. There is an alternative though.

The government could do nothing at all. Faced with the unpleasant choice above, the government could simply stand back and let the market play out. Would there be widespread financial hardship as the market contracted? Absolutely. The failing entities would be torn apart, their good assets would be sold off to other, more stable and better run institutions while their bad assets were purged from the market. I stated in a prior post that money would be pulled back into savings and increase domestic capital. After some initial shocks and job losses, the market would readjust and begin to function far more healthily than it was before such a jolt. Best of all, this process could take as little as a few months. Thus, our economic recession could actually be reduced in duration and severity simply by doing nothing at all. The process of these recession and depression cycles, and what we can learn from them, are analyzed in depth by Murray N. Rothbard at the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Austrian School (free market) economics. Having seen how government actions actually worsened the crises in the Great Depression and other times of financial hardship, one would think Congress might start heeding the warnings of the Austrian School Economists. So far, though, they do not seem to be paying attention.

Our presidential candidates are not much better. However, there is some hope with McCain. According to Austrian School economics, if government wants to do anything at these tough times, it should work to reduce inflation, cut spending, and lower taxes to increase economic incentives for investment. McCain's proposals match those recommendations fairly well. He has called for a freeze on all unessential government spending. Though it is unlikely he will be able to classify much as 'unessential,' any success he has will be helpful. He has also called for an end to earmark spending, and would lower taxes across the board. This would also be helpful.

Obama's plans stand in stark contrast. He has called for spending for several new or expanded social programs, not one of which he has been willing to cut or drop. He voted against a bill prohibiting earmark spending during this last term in the senate. As for his tax plan, while he would lower taxes for most individuals, his hugely increased taxes (50%) on any business taking in over $250,000 per year in revenue (not profit) would be extraordinarily harmful to the economy as it would include more than 70% of all business. Compare the plans yourself at the Tax Policy Center.

Despite problems on both sides that leave me with little faith that either candidate would do much to actually help the economy, it is fairly clear to see which candidate would do the most damage to it. Barack Obama's commitment to increased spending and higher taxes, not to mention his dangerous rhetoric attacking free trade, makes him an economic nightmare for the United States. John McCain, on the other hand, by cutting spending and lowering taxes, may succeed in sparing us from a prolonged depression.

I know there are many who disagree, who would like to believe in Barack Obama's fine rhetoric and who feel that he is as inspiring as my recommendations are austere and dismal. I was told just yesterday that for the government to do nothing would be heartless, and that the people need to feel that their government is involved to protect them. Thus, to conclude, I quote Ayn Rand once more on the dangers of ignoring economic reality for what feels good:

"[W]hen we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, 'but I didn't know it!' - you will not be forgiven." Atlas Shrugged (New York: Signet, 1985), 385.

As my friend said, "People generally get the government they deserve."

The Prophecy Of Ayn Rand From The Gods Of Rudyard Kipling

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends,

My ballot arrived in the mail today and I greeted it as I would a poisonous viper. As I considered which candidates would be least ill-equipped to deal with the situation we are beset with today, my mind continually turns toward a strange encounter I had this morning at the courthouse. Passing through the lobby, I paused to eavesdrop on a political debate between a few young people regarding the relative merits of McCain and Obama. I am always interested to learn how others view the political landscape, but was disappointed upon hearing only echoes of the populist nonsense the campaigns have been spewing about how their own brands of massive government intervention will save the economy-and all of us - from disaster. After a moment, though, my attention was drawn to an elderly lady sitting alone on a bench; she seemed to be silently crying.

Though this is not an entirely unusual event at a courthouse, it concerned me enough that I approached her to inquire whether she was well. She turned her careworn face to me and dabbed at her eyes with a handkerchief before managing an embarrassed smile. She explained that she had also been listening to the youthful debate and had become distraught by what she had heard. It seems that she was born in Germany and is old enough to remember Hitler's rise as the nation descended into fascism. People spoke in just the same way, she informed me. Times were hard enough that when the government promised it could fix everything if it just had a few less restrictions and a little more control, the people believed them because they wanted to. She said never thought she would see America making those same mistakes: trusting government to solve all our problems and giving it unfettered access to our economy and our liberty to do it. She told me she knows where that road leads and despairing at the idea of getting any closer ever again.

I never did hear why this lady was at the courthouse, but I thought about what she said for quite a while afterward. Lately, as the Fed spins out of control and Congress and the President lurch from one irrational move to another, many of us have been warning about the failed economic controls attempted in the Great Depression and in communist and socialist economies which just serve to cripple markets and make bad situations worse. What we have not focused on, though, and what she is right to point out, is that massive government control of our economy has consequences that reach much further than just economics. Do any of you recall what Ayn Rand said of the doom of rotted civilizations in Atlas Shrugged?

Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that
money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self sacrifice - you may know that your
society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an
arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: 'Account
overdrawn.' (New York: Signet, 1985. 383-384).

As I listen to the hum of the Fed printing presses, and watch as our government nationalizes our financial system and squanders the wealth of our nation on bailouts that should never have happened, I cannot help but think Ayn Rand may be correct.

The candidates this year all have a decidedly poor understanding of money and economics, and we have heard them make many promises of even more massive government intervention into the economy sweetened with populist rhetoric. Though John McCain, and Republicans in general, are less likely to balloon our government into the fascist, socialist nightmare Rand foretells, they have done little to earn anything close to our full confidence. We should all be putting a great deal of pressure on our Republican candidates in these last few days of the election to commit to solidly free market principles, and the reduction of government spending and power, or risk losing our votes. There has never been a better time to force a promise out of desperate politicians.

Should we fail to educate our politicians, unfortunately they will not be the only ones to suffer for their ignorance. Rudyard Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Headings are even now descending in wrath to forcibly remind us of the economic realities we have tried so hard to deny for so long. Martin Hutchinson has a few good suggestions for appeasing these particular gods, all of which the candidates should probably study if they want to get us back on track to healthy free markets.

Will Barack Obama Defend Israel? He Is Keeping His Options Open

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends,

I do not think the latest presidential debate was terribly enlightening for anyone who has been paying any attention over the past few months. However, it did contain one terrible surprise for me: Sen. Obama is not committed to the defense of Israel.

The question from retired Navy Chief Petty Officer Terry Shirey was simple, "If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?"

Both candidates rejected the idea of submitting to U.N. rule. Both candidates talked about attempting to use diplomacy, sanctions, and the combined pressure we can exert with our allies to prevent such an attack in the first place. "But, at the end of the day," Sen. McCain concluded, "I have to tell you again, and you know what it's like to serve, and you know what it's like to sacrifice, but we can never allow a second Holocaust to take place."

Sen. Obama's answer was neither as clear, nor as committed. "Now, it is true, though," he stated, "that I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies," particularly with Iran in such a situation. So as the president of the United States of America, he would be willing to legitimize the tyrant leader and clerics of Iran with the dignity of his office, but what of actually defending Israel -- one of our strongest allies? Of that, he says only that he is, "not taking military options off the table." In short, he would consider defending them as an option.

This comes from the same man who cannot say enough about how much more our allies need to be doing to help us with our efforts in Afghanistan and other places around the world. He expects them to help us, but seems to think defending them when they come under attack is optional. Last time I checked, mutual defense was the primary purpose of an alliance, and Israel's very existence is almost wholly dependent upon the solid and total commitment of the U.S. to that basic principle.

Sen. Obama's answer here was astonishing in its incompetence. Israel cannot survive such equivocation and hesitancy. Our allies can neither depend upon, nor trust, such inconstancy. Our own country cannot afford such ineptitude. We cannot afford to elect Barak Obama as our next president.

* * * * * * * * * *

P.S. The post debate media analysis alerted me to the astounding fact that some Democrats think Sen. McCain's obsequious use of the term, "my friends," is patronizing. Presumably, they think the same of my customary greetings at the start of every post. If so, I am sorry to cause offense. People may be interested to know that such phrases are fairly standard forms of polite address used in both Congress and the British parliament for centuries. Every student of Political Science will recognize the "honorable friend," of Edmund Burke echoing in the halls of Congress and Parliament to this day. To hear people disparage this ancient custom of civility and respect as patronizing is truly tragic. Personally, I think our politicians, and people in general, need to be more attentive to matters of civility -- not less.

2008 Colorado Ballot Guide

By Julian Dunraven J.D., M.P.A.

Dear friends,

This year, the Colorado ballot will be especially long. Already, I have received many calls asking me to briefly explain the various amendments and referenda issues from people who have neither the time nor the inclination to do the political research themselves. For those of you who are dreading the process of plowing through the lengthy ballot though, I hope this helps lessen that burden somewhat.

Also, for those of you who are wary of trusting a conservative curmudgeon on his word alone, you can find the philosophical principles I used to come to these decisions at the end of this post. If you read them you will know that you have become a true political nerd.

Finally, before we begin, I should explain that all the amendments, whether to the state constitution or to the Colorado Revised statutes, are brought by issue groups through the ballot initiative process. The referenda questions, on the other hand, are referred to the people by the state legislature. Without further ado, here are Colorado’s ballot questions for the 2008 election (Questions 53, 55, 56, and 57 will not be counted).

Amendment 46: Yes
This amendment to the Colorado constitution would end all state based affirmative action programs, as California has done. Merit would then be the only standard for public employment, public education, and public contracting. Private institutions would be unaffected. This is as it should be. Discrimination or preference granting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin should have no place in the modern world, where all people should be treated equally.

Amendment 47: Yes
The Colorado Right to Work Amendment to the Colorado constitution would prohibit any employer or organization from requiring an employee to join a labor union. While unions serve many good purposes, no one should be required to join one against their will.

Amendment 48: No
This amendment to the Colorado constitution would define the term “person” to include any human being from the moment of fertilization. The purpose of doing so is to find a back door method of outlawing abortion. Even if one is pro-life, though, this amendment is ill conceived as it would bring an aborted fetus under the purview of our murder laws and otherwise attempt to bring to a fetus into the same rights enjoyed by all other “persons.” By doing so, it would wreak havoc with our legal system, at great expense to the taxpayers, while doing absolutely nothing to change the constitutionality of abortion under the U.S. Constitution—as the Colorado Catholic Bishops have wisely pointed out. If people really want to end abortion through law, then they need to work on passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not the Colorado constitution.

Amendment 49: Yes
This amendment to the Colorado constitution would end the practice whereby the government collects union dues from public employees directly out of their paychecks. There is no reason that our government should be using taxpayer money to collect dues for a private organization— much less one that carries out lobbying activities. That creates an ethical nightmare. Any private organization should be responsible for collecting its own dues.

Amendment 50: Yes
This amendment to the Colorado constitution would allow local communities to extend casino hours of operation, as well as raise the limit on any single bet to $100. This amendment does three things I like: it increases freedom for the local communities; it increases tax revenue for the state through longer hours of operation and higher betting limits; and it improves safety on the roads through longer hours of operation, so that the casinos are not all emptying out at the same time. For those of you who oppose gambling in general, I submit that you should still support this amendment for those last two reasons. Gambling will remain in the state whether this amendment passes or not. However, this amendment will generate more revenue for the state, and ensure that a practice you may consider dangerous or objectionable, is carried out in a safer manner.

Amendment 51: No
This amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes would increase state sales taxes in order to assist long-term care for people with developmental disabilities. I oppose this for three reasons. First, I am generally against any tax increases unless absolutely necessary. Second, it places undue restrictions on the ability of the legislature to regulate the budget. Colorado's laws already unduly encumber the state legislature’s ability to set and regulate the budget. We should not make it any more cumbersome. Finally, if there is truly need for this, it should be discussed and voted upon in the legislature. The legislature is best equipped to analyze our tax system and revenues. It also provides a forum for all interested parties to be heard, and to tailor the proposal accordingly. The people simply do not have access to all the information the legislature has, nor can they hear from all interested parties in order to make the best and most educated decision. If, after considering all the facts, the legislature determines a tax increase may be necessary to protect and care for the developmentally disabled, then it can ask the people to support a tax increase through a referendum.

Amendment 52: No
This amendment to the Colorado constitution governs the allocation of revenues from the Colorado state severance tax imposed on minerals and mineral fuels. Allocation of revenue from a severance tax is something that should properly be left the legislature for the same reasons I gave regarding Amendment 51. In any case it should certainly be done via statute, and not enshrined in the Colorado constitution. Our constitution is muddled enough without locking in yet another regulation on our revenues.

Amendment 53: No
This amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes extends criminal liability of a business entity to its executive officials. I object to this for two reasons. First, the reason we do business through corporations is precisely because there is little to no personal liability involved. This encourages people not only to invest but become involved with business and promotes a good and healthy economy. As most people realize that no single individual can ever be responsible for everything a corporation does, to impose individual criminal liability on business executives discourages investment and involvement and dampens the economy. Next, because this amendment conditions liability on whether or not the executive in question knowingly failed to meet a duty imposed by law, the amendment actually encourages executives to be ignorant of the law and its obligations. That is not something our legal system should be fostering.

Amendment 54: No
This amendment to the Colorado constitution is yet another vain attempt to remove money from politics. In this case, it is trying to prevent any company or person with contracts from the government from making political contributions to a party or candidate, provided that those contracts were awarded without competitive bidding. The prohibitions would remain in place through the duration of the contract, and for two years thereafter. Our campaign finance regulations are already quite thorough. Records of campaign contributions are available for anyone who is interested. If, after inspecting those records, anyone is displeased by a candidate’s behavior concerning its donors, then he or she is free to vote against that candidate. Both businesses and people have a constitutional right to petition their government. In the interest of preventing corruption we may regulate that right somewhat, and indeed, our campaign finance laws have done so. However, we should certainly not eliminate that right altogether –especially not for two entire years because of an irrational fear that all money is corrupting. We will never remove money from politics altogether. The best we can do is to ensure transparency—and we have done so. This amendment attempts to go well beyond that, and succeeds only in trampling the right of people and business to petition the government.

Amendment 55: No
This amendment to the Colorado constitution would require that any employer establish just cause before dismissing or suspending any employee. This would effectively subject all business in Colorado to the same employment standards used by the Federal government. Thus, before a McDonalds could fire even a 16 year old worker who refused to show up to work on time—if at all, treated customers poorly, and consistently “miscounted” the money he or she took in, the company would have to document all of these behaviors over time so as to be able to prove them to a court in a civil suit. This process can often take months or even a year to complete. Managers and public policy experts already call for a reform of this inefficient system in the federal government. Our economy should not be so restrained, and would suffer greatly under such stifling and inefficient regulation—as would the liberty of private entrepreneurs. Perhaps even more alarming, the costs and burden this would place on our courts would be astronomical, and would quickly require large tax increases to pay for the huge number of new courtrooms and judicial staff that would be required to deal with the volume of new employment litigation cases.

Amendment 56: No
This amendment to the Colorado constitution would require all employers with more than 20 employees to provide health insurance coverage to their employees. If it passes, Colorado will become the most hostile state in the union for business and entrepreneurship. It will kill all incentive to invest in the state, and all current business will flee to other states. In short, it is a virtual guarantee of economic ruin for the state of Colorado.

Amendment 57: No
This amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes would require employers to provide a safe and healthy workplace for all of their employees. While sounding fairly pleasant, the law is so vaguely worded as to have little or no actual meaning. This amendment would serve little purpose save to encourage frivolous litigation.

Amendment 58: No
This amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes would eliminate the severance tax credit for oil and gas extraction. It would also, then, dictate how the increased revenue should be spent. As I have stated earlier, these sorts of questions regarding taxation and how revenue should be spent should properly be decided by the legislature, where all arguments can be heard and compromises can be made appropriately. After deliberating upon the options, if the legislature wishes to submit a referenda item to the people to approve or disapprove of a tax increase, it is free to do so. Without that prior work, debate, and analysis, the people are ill equipped to decide whether repealing this tax credit is necessary. We are even more ill equipped to decide how the increased revenues from that tax should be spent. We simply do not have access to all the information or interested parties. Thus, until this question can be properly debated by the legislature, I oppose any change in the law.

Amendment 59: No
Currently in Colorado, if the state collects surplus revenue in taxes, those excess taxes are refunded to the people under the Taxpayer’s Bill Of Rights if (TABOR). Under Amendment 59 to the Colorado constitution, though, those refunds would no longer occur. Instead, any surplus revenue generated by taxes would be put into a slush fund for K-12 public education. This amendment eviscerates TABOR, and creates an unlimited slush fund for one of the most inefficient and badly run systems in our government: the public school system. At a time when everyone is talking about how best to reform the public school system, it would be very unwise to give them a blank check. I certainly do not want to sacrifice TABOR to do so.

Referendum L: Yes
In this referendum, the state legislature asks if the Colorado constitution should be amended to permit any person, twenty one years or older, to serve in the Colorado General Assembly. Currently, the minimum age is set at 25 years. Given that all other rights confer upon people at the age of 21, it make sense that the right to serve in the legislature should as well. True, most 21 year olds do not have the wisdom to serve in the legislature and inspire little confidence. However, there are a few exceptional 21 year olds who might be ideally suited to the position. I would hate to prevent such an exceptional individual from serving the people in public office simply because of an age requirement, and I have every confidence that our people would never vote for someone they considered unqualified for office. Thus, this amendment can do no harm, but could do a great deal of good.

Referendum M: Yes
In this referendum, the state legislature asks if the Colorado constitution should be amended to remove obsolete provisions. The constitution should never be cluttered with regulations that can become obsolete. Removing such provisions is always a good thing, and trimming down law is usually a good thing.

Referendum N: Yes
This referendum likewise asks to remove other obsolete provisions from the state constitution.

Referendum O: Yes
In this referendum, the state legislature asks whether the state constitution should be amended so that it will be more difficult to amend in the future. Currently, it is just as easy to bring a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution as it is to amend the state statutes. Thus, almost all ballot initiatives attempt to amend the state constitution rather than the statutes so that the state legislature cannot change anything. This has led to an incredibly cluttered constitution, full of conflicting provisions which frequently impose such stringent financial obligations as to leave the state unable to adjust in times of hardship. This should not be. The constitution should be limited to the most fundamental expression of rights and government structures; it should not be a legislative depot for every issue group in the state. Thus, by making the constitution slightly harder to amend, we will encourage issue groups to bring ballot initiatives which amend the state statutes instead of the constitution. Thus, if they turn out to have unfortunate and unintended consequences, we can easily change them rather than suffer through a constitutionally created budget crisis such as spurred the need for Referenda C a few years ago. And yes, the state statutes will remain quite easy to amend through the ballot initiative process, so you fans of direct democracy have no need to fear.

Governing Philosophy:
For those of you who might wonder how I came to these decisions, I have a simple legislative philosophy. First, I do not believe the state constitution should be amended save to express guaranteed rights of our citizenry or to give fundamental structure to government entities. The constitution is no place for simple policy or tax plans, which may need to change drastically over time. Those should be limited to the Colorado Revised Statutes, which can be changed as needed by the legislature.

Second, I do not believe the people should be amending even the statutes lightly. The legislature exists to provide a forum for all interested parties to debate and express their opinions about policy. Through that forum, the senators and representatives can consider all available information and modify legislation based on that insight. The people do not have that advantage. In any ballot initiative, the only opinions we hear are from groups well funded enough to advertise extensively. Also, the people cannot modify or amend a ballot initiative as the legislature can with a bill. This means we must simply accept or reject what is offered to us on the basis of what is often limited or faulty information. As such, ballot initiatives should be used only to express clear, broad policy. Anything else, such as specific tax or revenue plans, should be left to the legislature. If our vote is needed, they can ask us for it through the referenda process. This is why we believe in a representative government rather than direct democracy in the first place. If you are concerned about such things, write your district senator or representative. At the state level, they ALWAYS have time to meet with you in person about it if you wish.

Finally, I think any legislation must pass a three part test before I will support it:
(1) The proposed law must address an issue of instability in society;
(2) The proposed law must be narrowly tailored so as to achieve its purpose while still promoting individual liberty to the greatest extent possible; and
(3) The proposed law must be enforceable so as to prevent arbitrary and capricious government actions which result in instability (back to step 1).
If any piece of legislation fails to meet a single part of this test, then it should not become law.

I believe that if you go back over the ballot initiatives with these standards in mind, you will come to the same conclusions I have. Thank you for your indulgence. I hope that this may be of some help to you in deciding how to vote in a few weeks.