Raven's Cry

Being a Polite Guest

2011-10-15T14:48:00.001-06:00

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

Honorable Friends:

Recently, while attending the anniversary party of some old friends, I found myself in a rather disturbing conversation with a few executives from the banking world. Each of these gentlemen complained that their latest young hires out of college lacked any semblance of professionalism—even when commanding six figure salaries. This lack of professionalism, they noted, was especially pronounced in any social situation. They then asked me if colleges bother to teach any sort of professionalism or etiquette today. Sadly, I expect the answer is generally, “No.” Although, I certainly try to instill a sense of professionalism in my own students, it is difficult to train people in a classroom for how they should act in a ballroom—or even a dining room. Nonetheless, I shall try to address some of the biggest etiquette problems of the dinner party here.

The invitation:
Unless you receive an invitation to an open house party, you need to reply to the host and accept or decline the invitation—and not a mere hour before your arrival. The R.S.V.P. is not optional, despite the literal translation.

Never ask who else is attending. This is rude. You are at least supposed to pretend you are happy to see the hosts over anyone else. As most modern invitations are online with a visible guest list, this should not pose much difficulty for anyone.

Finally, once you accept, you should not cancel unless a true emergency arises. And no, a better invitation is not an emergency.

What to wear:
If the invitation does not stipulate a dress code, then ask the host. While most modern social gatherings are casual, this does not grant a license to wear anything. One should never wear flip-flops, shorts, or tee shirts to anything other than the beach, a pool party, or an outdoor barbeque. There is nothing wrong with being comfortably slovenly in the privacy of your own home, but when others have to look at you, try for at least a modicum of fashion.

When to arrive:
Arrive on time for an invitation with a set end time, and no more than half an hour late for an invitation with an open ending.

What to bring:
While it is never appropriate to expect a gift, there are few people as annoying as those guests who expect to be feasted and entertained, yet never bring anything to offer in exchange for such hospitality. Such people should not expect to be invited a second time. Each guest at any party should traditionally bring either a bottle of wine or loaf of bread as a guest gift in appreciation for the hospitality they will receive. The host, gets to set the menu, however, so do not be offended if your wine is carted off to the cellar; it is for the host’s use—not yours.

If you want to be truly helpful, call the host and ask if there is anything you can do to help, or something extra you can bring. Hosts often appreciate a salad, desert, or side dish, but are far too polite to request them. They will certainly appreciate them if you offer, however.

What not to bring:
Perhaps even more annoying than the guests who bring nothing are the guests who bring what is not invited. An invitation goes to the addressee alone unless it specifically states otherwise.

Do not bring a date. Unless the invitation says, “and guest,” or the host tells you to bring someone, assume a date is not welcome. Only spouses and engaged couples arrive together at a party. Even then, however, if the party is only for employees, or involves only men or women, spouses are not welcome. And no, you may not ask the host. That only puts pressures them to acquiesce. If the host asks why you did not bring a date, then feel free to do so next time. However, unless specifically told otherwise, the invitation goes to the addressee alone.

This applies doubly to children. Adult parties are no place for children and one should never assume children are welcome. Sometimes, however, a host will make accommodations for children. If you know this is often the case, you may discretely ask the host. Do not be surprised, however, if the host responds that this particular party will be for adults only. Also, never assume that the host’s own children will, or even should, be available to entertain your own, and never invite other children of like age to create an children’s play group to entertain themselves while the adults party. The host may choose to do that—but you may not. Adults often host such parties to get a break from parenting responsibilities. Do not deprive them of that rare pleasure by forcing them to accommodate uninvited children.

As for pets, assume they are never welcome. Unless a host specifically asks you to bring your pet, you should leave it home. Do not ask the hosts or pressure them to accept your pet. Do not bring your pet and leave it sitting in the car hoping that the host will take pity. Leave it home. No matter how much you love your pet, it is not ever appropriate to bring it to the home of another uninvited.

Many people keep delightful, well trained, and well-groomed animals. Of course, such conscientious folk would not dream of breaking this rule. The people who break this rule tend to be thoughtless knaves who keep obnoxious, barely controlled beasts who have not had a bath in over a month and smell as if they just rolled in a dung heap. Yet, these people always think the rest of us find their little dog as cute and adorable as they do. We don’t. Leave them home.

What to say:
Conversation at a social party should be light and genial. In reply to the question, “How are you?” You should answer, “Fine, thanks. And you?” This should be your reply even if you just suffered the worst heartbreak in history, lost your entire family fortune on the stock market, and are currently dying of cancer. Your best friends may want to hear about that—privately—but people come to parties to enjoy themselves. Conduct yourself with good cheer and decorum or do not come.

Similarly, do not get so drunk you make a fool of yourself or start confessing the intimate details of your love life to all and sundry. You might have gotten away with such antics in University when people assumed you were afflicted with existential angst and professors were busy scrambling your brains, but after that, you are expected to have some decorum. To engage in such behavior among colleagues is especially disastrous. They will find you either grossly uncouth or laughably pathetic, and in both cases you will undermine any respect they have for you as a professional.

As for those of you who love politics, try to keep your discussions civil and light. No one ever succeeded in converting the opposition during a heated shouting match or by hurling personal attacks. They have, however, managed to ruin many good dinner parties and irked many dutiful hosts with such antics. Keep it light or walk away. If you make a boor of yourself, you will not find yourself invited back very often.

When to leave:
As if getting people to arrive and behave themselves properly is not hard enough, one of the most problematic areas for hosts is getting their guests to depart. The rule here is easy. If the invitation listed a set time range for the gathering, make sure you are out by the appointed hour. If, however, the party is open ended, you should depart thirty minutes after the hosts’ last offer of refreshments. If they do not repeat the offer, make for the door. Similarly, if the host rises and refuses to sit, it is time to depart.

There. Was that so hard? You have now mastered basic dinner party skills. Next time we can move on to advanced silverware and table conversation. Now, go forth and socialize.

The Cyberbullying of Gay Youth

2010-10-13T15:53:00.003-06:00

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

Honorable Friends:

By now, most of you have heard the sad story of Tyler Clementi. He was that unfortunate freshman at Rutgers University whose sexual encounter with another man was secretly filmed by his dorm roommate and live streamed over the internet. Mr. Clementi then committed suicide by jumping of the George Washington Bridge, having first posted his plans to his Facebook page. The incident captured the attention of the national press, which has since worked diligently to highlight much of the bullying gay youth endure daily.

The Denver Post is no exception. In yesterday’s front page story, “Young, Gay, Bullied,” the Post focused on the high rates of depression and suicide among young gay students who are bullied by or isolated from their peers. Of particular interest is the relatively recent phenomenon of cyberbullying through blogs, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and other online sources. The Post cited several methods of addressing this problem, ranging from additional tolerance education and awareness programs to school administrative punishments to new legislation criminalizing cyberbullying. Such legalistic outcomes, however, would render an already tragic situation truly ghastly.

Do not mistake me. I truly do understand the problem and I do not doubt the plight of these young gay people. During my own time in high school, I was careful not to reveal my bisexuality to more than a handful of trusted friends. I was well liked, and had no desire to sacrifice social status to an identity which would have rendered me an instant pariah. Still, there were always rumors, inevitable suspicions, and occasional confrontations. Some of that was decidedly unpleasant. I was lucky, though. Those friends who did know accepted it without question. Many others would not have cared even if I had told them. And to my family it was a non issue. Not everyone is so fortunate.

Unlike other minority groups, gay students have no natural support network; their parents and siblings are generally straight. Often, families not only have difficulty relating to the problems faced by gay youth, they also actively disapprove of homosexuality. Peers, faced with overwhelming pressure to fit in, will often disassociate from gay students for fear of being labeled with the f- word themselves. Gay people faced with any one of these situations can and do feel incredible isolation and depression. That much is undisputed. Debates among scholars and theologians regarding the causes, nature, and morality of human sexuality, however, can fill volumes. It is not something to be addressed here at the Peoples Press Collective, which limits its scope to issues dealing with individual liberty, the free market, and limited government. Unfortunately, whatever one may think of their intent, many of the proposals listed by the Post to address the cyberbullying faced by young gay people negatively impact all three of those topics.

Focus on the Family correctly points out the danger to the marketplace of ideas and free religious expression with mandatory school programs and penalties specifically tailored to promote tolerance for homosexuality. Many mainstream religious traditions regard homosexual acts as mortal sins. For any public school administration or law to step in to enforce toleration and acceptance of homosexuality would usurp the province of religion to define virtue and thus violate one of the most cherished aspects of the first amendment. According to the Post, Focus on the Family instead would like to see bullying policies that protect all students against all forms of bullying for any reason. Even this, however, goes too far.

Apparently, our society has gotten to the point where at least some believe it is no longer acceptable to make gay people feel excluded or unwanted. Well and good. After all, gay marriage and civil unions are increasingly recognized in the various states and nations of the world. What about stoners though? I recall those semi-dazed individuals who would languish behind the main building of my high school, quietly smoking their marijuana while the rest of us went to class. Many students shunned them and sneered at the foul reek that hung about them. Yet, smoking marijuana for medicinal reasons is now legal in Colorado. California may soon legalize it for any reason. Should we now prohibit any exclusion or derision of such drug use? And what of students who espouse a belief in the doctrines of Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, or the KKK? Such beliefs are certainly legal. However, at my high school, anyone who publicly stated such beliefs quickly found themselves without a single friend and excluded from all social functions by their peers. Should such exclusion and public derision be prohibited? I think not.

The first amendment also protects the freedom of expressive association. We can choose with whom to associate. We are also free to state the beliefs and values that hold such associations together and exclude and disapprove of those who refuse to meet those values. Sports and athletics are perhaps the most obvious examples of this. While participation is voluntary, you must accept the rules in order to be included. Failure to play by those rules results in censure and exclusion. Though other human associations may not be so clear about their rules, the basic idea is the same. Politicians soon find themselves excluded from their own parties if they take positions in conflict with the party platform. Dinner guests, likewise, do not often receive a second invitation if they forgo the use of any utensils or decorum. Indeed, such behavior, if it becomes publicly known, can even cause a person to lose his employment.

While most of us appreciate our freedom of association, few people acknowledge the importance of disassociation and publicly expressed disapproval. While exclusion does make people feel terrible, it is the best tool we have to regulate social norms and values in a free society. In this way, everyone is free to choose their own social circles, promote the values which are important to them, and exclude those who do not share such values. The only alternative is to have a governmental authority dictate all values and associations. That is completely unacceptable—but it seems many people are calling for exactly that in an effort to address cyberbullying.

Obviously, any responsible school should have reasonable policies prohibiting bullying on its grounds. Name calling and similar behavior is not only rude, it is disruptive to the educational process and should be sharply corrected. In the event of a physical altercation, the law, in addition to any school policy, can bring severe penalties to the aggressor, though all people have a right to defend themselves and others. However, when school policy or legislation extends beyond the school grounds and classrooms into the social lives and online interactions of students, problems arise.

Unless an overt physical threat is expressed, cyberbullying, while often cruel and rude, is often no more than disdainful speech. Any attempt to limit it can run afoul of the first amendment. It has other unpleasant consequences as well.

By interfering in the social lives and expressions of youth, such policies take away any opportunity students may have to express and enforce their own values, and places that responsibility solely on a governmental authority. The proper response to a bully who is rudely or inappropriately deriding a friend in speech or in any online forum is to exclude the bully from social life. Conversely, if someone expresses legitimate condemnation of unacceptable behavior, the object of such condemnation should be excluded. In this way, students learn to stand up for their own values and regulate their own behaviors. It does wonders for their sense of self worth as well. When the state or school authority criminalizes such behavior and usurps all power to regulate associations and interactions, it teaches our youth to rely not upon themselves and their friends to solve problems, but on official authority. In later life, that produces well trained sheep without any self esteem who follow their employers without question and who expect governmental authority, not individual innovation, to solve all of their problems for them. That is not how a free people should live. That is how slaves and serfs live.

Every time law intrudes into the province of etiquette, these problems arise. As a lawyer, I know it for absolute truth that law is seldom the best solution to any given problem. It is vital to remember that the authority of law ultimately issues from the barrel of a gun. Law is force. It takes away any choice or option and imposes a permanent directive which must be followed lest one lose property, liberty, or even life. Etiquette, on the other hand, is wholly consensual, dynamic, and continually adaptable. Merely by exercising our right to associate and disassociate as we see fit, we express and enforce the values which we want to guide our individual lives.

At times, we will all face situations in which we are rudely or perhaps even unjustly excluded and demeaned by those who do not share our values. Certainly, young gay students face this more often than most, and I have the greatest sympathy for them and what they endure. The solution, however, is not to call for the school authorities or state legislature to enforce tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, or whatever the case may be, upon everyone else.

Any victim of such ridicule should instead seek out a group of peers who share his values and stand ready to defend them and one another. Other students should express their own support of such individuals while publicly censuring and excluding anyone they believe is behaving rudely or inappropriately toward another individual. As families, friends, and community members, we should be encouraging our youth to express and defend our values. When we see others attacked for values we share, we should live by example and speak out in their defense, censuring and excluding bullies from our own social circles and networks. In this way, free people constantly foster and defend the values they live by—not by law, force, and compliance—but by individual choice, responsibility, and virtue. Moreover, unlike law, which imposes one standard on everyone, etiquette leaves each person free to find their own group of like minded individuals.

Having experienced the hardships bullies can impose first hand, I understand the deep desire people have to protect their children from enduring similar circumstances. As a current practitioner of corporate law with its stringent demands for professionalism, I abhor rudeness of any sort. Here at the PPC, we even created the “Political Breath” page to address issues of etiquette in political activism. However, much as I despise bullying and rudeness, I am unwilling to sacrifice my freedoms for the illusion of acceptance. Government cannot legislate social inclusion. It cannot grant self esteem. It cannot force virtue into human hearts. Only individuals have that power, and as individuals we must take the responsibility to do so.

Norton Attack Ad Improperly Taken From People’s Press Collective Video

2010-07-29T15:13:00.000-06:00

By Julian Dunraven

Honorable Friends:

This morning, Eileen Mahony, D.C. Bureau Chief for the People’s Press Collective, put up a very amusing piece about how the Norton campaign borrowed rather liberally from PPC to produce their latest attack ad against Ken Buck. Well, borrowed might not be quite accurate. Given that they took video from PPC, edited it to remove the PPC copyright notices, cropped the size of the video to remove the PPC title bar, and then added it to their ad without any citation to PPC whatsoever, some might even call that stealing. Unfortunately, that seems to be the theme of this election.

Judging from the comments in Ms. Mahony’s post, some have mistakenly assumed PPC is favoring Ken Buck in the primary. This is not true. PPC does not endorse in primary elections. However, its members do tend to object when campaigns try to steal their material. It seems they have objected rather strenuously too. PPC has provided access to a series of documents detailing this matter, including the PPC cease and desist letter to the Jane Norton campaign, the Norton campaign’s response, and PPC’s reiteration of its cease and desist demands.

As one of the PPC commentators has already suggested, this incident reveals a disturbing and lack of character in the Norton campaign. Not only did the campaign grossly distort Buck’s words in its ad, it took material from the PPC without permission or even attribution to do so. The PPC’s final letter to the Norton campaign asks, “If even allies of the campaign cannot depend upon it for fair dealing, how is the rest of the state supposed to trust it?” That is a question I think many of us will be considering.

Plagiarism Renders Scott McInnis Unfit to Practice Law or Govern

2010-07-14T22:09:00.001-06:00

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

Honorable Friends:

Yesterday’s Denver Post reported that Scott McInnis plagiarized the work of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory J. Hobbs in articles McInnis drafted for the Hasan Family Foundation. The foundation paid McInnis $300,000 for these articles.

After the story broke, Mr. McInnis blamed a researcher for the problem and claimed in his own press release that the plagiarism was unintentional. This is rubbish.

Mr. McInnis is certainly familiar with academic and professional writing standards; he is a doctor of law, after all. Thus, he should know he has an obligation to review any material submitted by a research assistant. However, he should also know that, if he intends to use whole pages of text submitted by his research assistant, then he has a responsibility to list the research assistant as a minor coauthor and cite his contributions. Mr. McInnis failed to do either of these things. Instead, he claims he took whole passages of text, supposedly submitted by an assistant, added them to his article, and represented it all as original and finished work, but somehow did so unintentionally. In order to believe such acts can be accomplished unintentionally, we have to believe that Mr. McInnis was not in control of his own body or mind. Perhaps he was possessed at the time. Otherwise, he is lying. Which do you suppose is more likely?

Plagiarism represents the height of intellectual dishonesty and reveals a complete lack of academic integrity. Not so long ago, virtually all conservatives and most liberals agreed that a similar lack of academic integrity rendered Ward Churchill unfit to teach at a university. I cannot now find any ethical way to apply a lesser standard to a man who seeks, not simply to lecture a few dozen students in a classroom, but to govern the entire state of Colorado.

During law school, I sat on the faculty’s academic affairs committee as a student member. During one of our meetings, we discussed what to do about a few students who had indulged in plagiarism. The guilty students put up the same defense McInnis now offers. They claimed they did not fully understand that they were plagiarizing and that it was all unintentional.

I had no sympathy for such excuses. The idea that anyone can get into a top tier law school like the University of Colorado and not understand plagiarism is absurd. Thus, I recommended immediate expulsion for these students. The professors, however, did not want to appear unmerciful. They simply gave the students failing grades in the classes in which they were caught plagiarizing. The law school then forwarded a report of the incidents to the Colorado Supreme Court’s Board of Law Examiners, detailing the penalties discussed and imposed. The Board of Law Examiners, however, agreed with me. None of these students were permitted to sit for the Bar Examination—they were not permitted to become practicing attorneys.

Already a practicing attorney, McInnis cannot be prevented from taking the bar exam. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect that the Colorado Supreme Court will soon review McInnis’ actions and sanction him for violating Rule 8.4 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. Anyone seeking to file a complaint about McInnis’ conduct should contact the Attorney Regulation Counsel.

Plagiarism renders a person unfit to teach at a university because academic dishonesty undermines trust in all legitimate scholarship. Plagiarism renders a person unfit to practice law because a person who would lie about a mere academic paper cannot hope to be trusted with protecting both the finances and liberties of his clients—not to mention the integrity of the justice system. The temptation to lie becomes too severe for such an unprincipled person. Yet, neither a professor nor any individual lawyer holds such public trust as a governor of a state.

The Tea Party movement, in its call for accountability in our public servants, reminds us that this issue of trustworthiness is of paramount importance today. The Republican Party is laudably attempting to address these concerns and redeem its past mistakes by demanding responsible limited government always accountable to the people. Mr. McInnis, however, has dishonored himself and proven totally unworthy of the people’s trust. Yet he has the audacity to ask the Republican Party to nominate him as its candidate for governor. After the Republican fury over Ward Churchill, nominating McInnis would be the height of hypocrisy and further alienate already disillusioned voters and Tea Party activists.

For these reasons, I must regrettably join in the call for Mr. McInnis to withdraw from the gubernatorial race in order to spare himself and our Party from further embarrassment. At this point, no ethical Republican could vote for him without shame or with any expectation of reform in government as usual. If plagiarism demonstrates such unprincipled character as to make a man unfit to teach and an attorney unfit to practice law, then it should certainly render a candidate unfit to be the governor of Colorado.

No Economic Recovery; Prepare For Inflationary “Meltup”

2010-05-14T21:00:00.002-06:00

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

Honorable Friends:

Your government is lying to you. We are not in economic recovery. We are merely experiencing a cash bubble through printing—inflation—and every day that bubble is in greater danger of bursting. When it does, the American people will face national bankruptcy.

The following video comes to me on the recommendation of Gerald Celente, director of the Trends Research Institute, and The Trends Journal. For those of you who have not already subscribed to his journal, he is one of the best economic forecasters in the world.

To my friends in the Tea Party, this is why you are marching. Simply getting Republicans elected will not be enough to save this nation from economic collapse. Any politician, Democrat or Republican, who does not understand what is in this video must go.

In addition to Mr. Celente, this documentary, "Meltup," features some of the best economic experts available including:

Peter Schiff, Austrian School economist, bestselling author of Crash Proof, owner of Euro Pacific Capital, former economic advisor to Ron Paul, and current candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut

Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas , former presidential Candidate, bestselling author and voice of the Austrian School economists on Capitol Hill

Marc Faber, renowned Austrian School economist.

Jim Rogers, investor, author, and financial commentator

Tom Woods, historian, bestselling author, and senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

And several others.

The National Inflation Association has done a fine job in producing "Meltup." Our liquid fuels crisis, the manipulations and fraud in the precious metals markets, the debt problems and the looming threat of dollar collapse through inflation are all covered in detail. As Celente points out, we are on the verge of the second American Revolution. This video will give you a better understanding of what we face, and what the Tea Party and its supporters MUST achieve if it is to be successful.

Chatting with Tom Wiens: Colorado Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate

2010-05-13T01:59:00.002-06:00

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

Honorable Friends:

Thanks to profligate spending policies, bailouts, stimulus packages, and unprecedented extensions of Federal power, I have a good deal of confidence that Democrats will suffer many defeats in the upcoming elections. I just wish I felt equally confident that the Republicans who replace them will do much better. Unfortunately, after chatting briefly with various candidates in the last few forums, I often had the impression that I was talking to some sort of annoying animatronic devices which, upon sensing motion, would begin to recite a list of talking points: “Drill, baby drill,” “All of the above,” “No more bailouts,” and “I’m against stimulus.” Any questions seeking more information about these subjects just triggered another recitation. If this is the depth of understanding we can expect from politicians, is it any wonder why even many Republicans in Congress voted for the so called Jobs bill—a stimulus by another name? Our Republican candidates have all figured out that they should oppose bailouts and stimulus packages, but if the only way they can recognize a bailout or stimulus bill is if it says so in the title, then we are all in a great deal of trouble.

In chatting with the various people vying for the Republican nomination to be the next U.S. Senator, I was impressed by the enthusiasm and decency of the candidates, but not by their grasp of the fundamental economic issues this country must face. I was almost ready to despair over the state of Colorado politics . . . until I overheard Tom Wiens answering a question about the gold market and displaying a depth of economic understanding I have almost never seen in a politician. I immediately requested an interview and, last week, he was kind enough to sit down with me for an hour and a half to chat about the state of the nation.

Now, I did not bring the PPC film crew to this interview; I did not even bring a voice recorder. I was not interested in sound bites or talking points. I was only interested to know what made Mr. Wiens any different from any other Republican candidate, and why anyone should trust him at all given the abysmal job Republicans have done so far in their half-hearted attempts to support limited government and a free market. Mr. Wiens exceeded all of my expectations and left me thoroughly impressed.

The difference in experience between Mr. Wiens and his fellow GOP contenders is fairly obvious. While his major competitors have spent virtually their entire careers in the public sector, Mr. Wiens, by contrast, has a strong background in the private sector as a Colorado banker, rancher, and entrepreneur. Thus, he knows the costs increased regulation and taxation place on small businesses – not just in money – but also in time and effort.

Of course, these days a strong business background is not always a great recommendation for politicians. Our federal government is absolutely full of private sector businessmen who seem all too happy to use the power of government to influence various industries. Many commentators have noted the unprecedented influence of former Goldman Sachs executives in the Bush and Obama administrations, and with the Federal Reserve. The American people are rightly angry that Wall Street so often persuades Congress to offer advantages to some businesses and industries over others.

Mr. Wiens certainly understands this. Rather than make the usual hollow attacks on special interests, however, he blames Congress for overreaching to the point they have created a business climate that almost requires government involvement. When Congress holds some industries accountable for their errors while providing bailouts to cover the mistakes of others and can be persuaded to create anticompetitive regulations to ensure the survival of favored businesses, it should surprise no one that lobbying has become a blood sport.

To Mr. Wiens, the solution to this is not to try silencing lobbyists and industry. That would just mean Congress could continue to meddle in the economy unimpeded—but with even less information on which to base their ill-considered policies. Congress, he says, needs to massively scale back spending, taxes, and much of its administration if it truly wants to aid the economy. Unfortunately, because so few members of Congress have any proper understanding of economics, even some Republicans can be convinced that stimulus packages and jobs bills are needed to help economic growth. In truth, all the stimulus bills have done is increase liquidity and inflation, pouring cash into an increasingly unstable financial market, without any increase in productive capacity at all.

Mr. Wiens suffers no such confusion about economics. He is an avid student of Austrian School free market economics and can speak eloquently and easily about the long term devastating effects bailouts and stimulus packages will ultimately have on our economy. According to him, if Congress really wants to help, it needs to stay out of the markets, lower taxes, pull back its administrative agencies, and massively cut spending—and not just the tiny bit of the total budget that goes to earmarks.

That is certainly sound policy, but I have heard other Republicans say something similar, then watched them vote on appropriations bills in lockstep with liberals. To this challenge, Mr. Wiens pointed out that, as a state senator, he was frequently the only ‘no’ vote in hearings despite the urgings of his own party. I checked with a few of his old colleagues at the state legislature and they all confirm that, even when every other Republican and Democrat was in agreement, if a bill violated Mr. Wiens’ principles as to the proper role of government, he would vote ‘no.’ This earned him a reputation as a bit of a curmudgeon, but also as a man of integrity and philosophical consistency. Though a smart politician can always feign devotion to principle, it is quite rare to find one who has a voting record to prove it.

All of this is rather encouraging and speaks well of Mr. Wiens. However, his many admirable traits are not what inspired my trust. It was his faults that impressed me most. You see, Mr. Wiens talks too much—far too much for talking points and sound bites. During the course of our conversation, he excitedly proposed a single subject rule for congressional bills, sunset provisions for virtually all laws and agencies, and an evaluation process to determine when an agency is bankrupt or failed and should be closed. He burbled on about the precious metal markets, the housing market, and the sovereign debt crisis of the states and much of the EU in great detail. Finally, we talked about energy policy and the liquid fuels crisis. I was impressed he could speak so fluently about supply shortages, increased usage, infrastructure problems, environmental issues, and national security concerns that affect the issue, and quickly decided we would have to discuss some of these issues in more detail on camera.

At one point, we were briefly interrupted by a member of his staff asking a question about provisions for a party. Mr. Wiens was somewhat irked by the interruption and apologized profusely. However, had it not occurred, I would have never known that, every year, he invites cadets from the Air Force Academy out to his ranch for a small celebration in appreciation of the service they do for this country. It just happened to be going on during our interview. While Mr. Wiens may not have thought to mention it, I was quite impressed.

This is why I did not want a video camera or voice recorder for this interview. When people know they are not going to be on video or quoted directly, they tend to speak more freely and you get a better picture of their true characters. When you get to know him, Mr. Wiens does not seem like a typical politician. In fact, I think trying to hold back his enthusiasm and speak only in prepared sound bites might actually kill him. Considering his passionate interest in free market economics and policy, and after examining some of the dense books on those subjects he reads for leisure, you might even call him a bit of a nerd. A distinctly private person, Mr. Wiens is more at home with his own family and business interests than with the megalomaniac self promotion required by a statewide campaign. I think he would not be running at all if he did not so clearly see the terrible financial storm building over this country and most of the world. Mr. Wiens certainly has the means to ensure he and his family can weather that storm. However, he is also a patriot, and he is trying to offer his knowledge and experience to the people of this state and nation to help them weather it as well. His knowledge, experience, and philosophical integrity impressed me greatly, and his personality is far too enthusiastic and quirky to be anything but honest. He may be exactly what we need. I strongly encourage all our honorable friends to take a good look at his candidacy as we approach the primary. I think you will be impressed. So far, I have yet to meet anyone better.

Rally to the Enemy: Protests that Harm Your Cause

2010-04-21T12:03:00.000-06:00

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A., & Eileen McGuire Mahony

On Monday, the anniversary of the battle of Lexington and Concord, dozens of gun rights activists gathered on Gravelly Point, across the Potomac River from the Capitol. They were all openly and heavily armed, and all reeking of political breath. Their honorable purpose was to rally in support of Second Amendment rights, which the District of Columbia continually attempts to subvert. As you might imagine, only fellow gun rights supporters seemed to like the rally, while gun control advocates were alarmed despite the fact that there were no injuries, overt threats, or even so much as a single shot fired.

One of our favorite politicos sent word of the rally to “Political Breath,” and asked us to address the persuasive value of such demonstrations. Mr. Dunraven simply chuckled darkly then rang our D.C. Beauro Chief, Ms. Mahony to solicit her view of the matter. Unfortunately, her staff informed him that, upon getting the news, she had simply requested a bottle of tawny port and a bendy straw, then retired to her chambers for the day.

It is not that we oppose gun rights, mind you. Indeed, Mr. Dunraven only stopped sleeping with a pistol under his pillow when he realized he had time to take afternoon tea every day or make a daily trip to purchase a new alarm clock–but not both. Ms. Mahony, in steadfast refusal to be parted with her gun, simply gave up television after going through a few sets. She claims that the evening news was bad for her health anyway. She now spends her evenings meditating serenely to the music of Elvis.

Despite our love of the Second Amendment, however, weapons wielding rallies cause us a good deal of consternation because they have almost no persuasive value. Far from persuading others to see the value of guns, such demonstrations only alarm and inflame the opposition. Frankly, we cannot much blame them. A large group of well armed citizens angrily protesting the growth of government and vowing that they will no longer tolerate it is indeed somewhat alarming. Of course, our founders did contend that a government should fear its people and thus be kept to good behavior. Perhaps that was the goal of the rally. If so, they may still have a ways to go before our government is convinced they represent the people rather than an angry militia group.

If, on the other hand, the goal was to persuade people that Second Amendment rights are vital to our republic, we have a few suggestions. First, it is generally prudent to consider who you are trying to appeal to and what your detractors will say about you. If your detractors generally say you are a bunch of angry unhinged loons wielding dangerous weapons, it is probably best if you avoid appearing in such a manner. After all, what do you suppose someone unfamiliar with gun rights causes thinks upon seeing a large group of well armed people protesting the government? Scary unhinged loons wielding dangerous weapons. Precisely. They might even associate it with the images of Islamic fundamentalists firing their guns into the air in the Middle East. It doesn’t matter that not a single shot was fired at the rally. That is the image that pops into people’s minds.

A better option would have been to stand on the Point and call attention to the fact that no guns can get any closer than that to our Capital City. Across the river, despite the crime high rate, people must depend solely on police for protection. Then go on to cite the crime reducing and life saving effects of concealed carry laws. Give profiles of profoundly normal people who have needed their concealed carry permits to save their lives or another’s life. Wax poetically about the history and purpose of the Second Amendment. But in all ways appear normal, peaceable, and civilized. Reasonable people can appreciate and relate to such arguments. Most people do not relate to the image of walking about with a semi-automatic assault rifle strapped to one’s back. In fact, they get downright uneasy about it and tend to start calling police with terrorist sighting tips.

Thus, unless you want to add ammunition to your enemy’s store of arguments, always consider your audience. Consider what would appeal to them—not others like you who do not need convincing. And keep in mind how your opponents are likely to portray you. Try not to make it easy for them to paint you as a villain.

If you are planning on hosting a gun rights rally and absolutely must have your weapons on display, however, we suggest you throw a mock fox hunt. Not a true fox hunt of course. We quite simply adore cute little foxes and our liberal friends would go into fits of apoplexy if you actually tried killing the darling creatures. Nonetheless, garbed in the proper dashing gear and riding about on horseback trumpeting to a pack of baying hounds is the very image of refined civilization. Best of all, after all the riding about looking splendid, you get to sit down to a lovely picnic, laid out by the small army of servants that will no doubt accompany any proper fox hunt, and refresh yourself with a Bloody Mary. Why, if you pull that feat off, Ms. Mahony and Mr. Dunraven may even deign to join your protest.

Colorado Supreme Court Overturns Amendment 54--As I Predicted

2010-02-24T13:21:00.003-07:00

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

Honorable Friends,

In its recent opinion , Dallman v. Ritter, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned Amendment 54 saying that it was "unconstitutionally vague, disproportional, overbroad, or otherwise infirm. Indeed, we find the Amendment’s deficiencies so pervasive that we must nullify the Amendment in its entirety."

As you may recall, Amendment 54 of the Colorado Constitution would have prevented those with no bid government contracts and their families from making campaign contributions for the duration of the contract and for two years thereafter. Supporters claimed it was intended to prevent the appearance of corruption in no bid government contracts. It was passed by voters in 2008.

If you have been a long time reader of the People’s Press Collective or Slapstick Politics, you may also recall that I advised against voting for this amendment, correctly predicting that its restrictions went too far and trampled first amendment rights. I am pleased to see that the Court agreed with me.

Never let it be said, however, the Conservatives are monolithic in their thinking. Many of my colleagues here at the PPC and other prominent conservatives supported this amendment. Though I was unable to join in their enthusiasm for the complete amendment, their stated goal of improving transparency in government is laudable. Indeed, the amendment contained one provision requiring that the state maintain a database of no bid contracts which the public can access and inspect at will. This alone would have addressed issues of transparency adequately, without any of the constitutional problems the rest of the amendment causes. It is also the section of the Amendment the Court found least objectionable. With minimal redrafting, it could be reenacted on its own. Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute has called for the legislature to do just that. Given that this was the only Amendment the voters actually passed in 2008, the legislature would be wise to heed his advice.

State of the Union Attack on the Supreme Court Extremely Inappropriate

2010-01-27T22:16:00.000-07:00

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

Honorable Friends:

After watching the State of the Union address tonight, I notice not much has actually changed in a year. Fashion, for instance, remains a foreign concept in Congress. We were back to the standard assemblage of wretchedly dull red and blue ties for men, and uninspiring cliché shades of red and blue suits for women. One elected official sitting next to John McCain even tried to combine the standards by pairing a blue tie with a bright red vest. Unfortunately, the result was so appallingly garish that I cannot even given him token points for creativity. At least the politician uniform makes them easy to spot and avoid on the street. I suppose I should just be happy that the President chose to forgo the imperial purple he often wore during the campaign; it would have made his tone even more alarming.

Mr. Obama’s policies were also remarkably unchanged. As many other sources will discuss, he held firm to his ultra liberal commitments to impose cap and trade legislation, impose massive government intervention into the economy and financial sector, and remain firm in his efforts to impose a radical government takeover of healthcare.

Nonetheless, I must admit that the speech carried an appealingly strong tone of disgust with Washington, political games, backroom deals, and irresponsible spending. I might be more impressed if I were able to forget that Mr. Obama and the Democrats have controlled both the White House and Congress for over a year, now, and even held a super majority in the Senate until last week. If politics in Washington are a bit dodgy, one can hardly blame the Republicans or, after a year’s time, continue to whine about the old policies of Mr. Bush.

Perhaps the most amusing point in the speech came when Mr. Obama asserted that responsible budgeting and economics required that we do not reign in spending until we are actually in recovery, and until then we should pour more money into a stimulus bill, which we will now call a jobs bill. I was pleased to see I was not the only one unable to contain my laughter at this absurdity. The Republicans in the chamber all seemed to erupt into derisive chuckles. As the Republican response pointed out, the way to recovery is not through increasing government interference in the economy—not financial, not energy, and not healthcare. Nor is it to excessively spend or tax the wealthy, or increasingly grant loans which we then forgive after 20 years. Rather, it is to roll back government in general, lower taxes across the board, and allow the economy to function on its own, free of the favors or penalties of government.

Mr. Obama did mention a few positives. He seemed willing to talk about nuclear power and off shore drilling, for instance. However, if he intends to include these things as part of larger cap and trade legislation, then he poisons the well of energy before we even start drilling it. He also talked about granting gays equal treatment in the military. However, as commander in chief, he has the power to do this at the stroke of a pen. Whatever you may think of the idea, do not expect his talks with Congress and the Pentagon to produce any results on this matter. The Democrats love to assure GLBT people that they should be treated as equals while doing absolutely nothing to support that idea beyond giving speeches. His other prior work on ending torture and closing Guantanamo Bay, while laudable, was not mentioned at all. His utter lack of progress on that goal might have been a bit embarrassing, I suppose, as would his incomprehensible failure to understand how to properly balance an interest in basic human rights with the need to secure against terrorist enemy combatants. Treating them all as if they were domestic criminals is so profoundly foolish that I believe he was wise not to raise the subject.

Commentators seem to be overlooking the most disturbing aspect of Mr. Obama’s speech, though. He openly criticized the decision making of the Supreme Court and allowed the chamber to applaud his remarks on that subject. It is one thing to express disagreement with the Court on matters of policy in his role as the Chief Executive. It is another to publicly censure the decision making capabilities and the very competence of a Supreme Court decision during the State of the Union address. This was a direct attack on the credibility of the third branch of government, the branch that depends entirely upon the respect of the public for its authority. It was completely inappropriate for the President to make such remarks, and I cannot recall the last time a President made such an overt assault on the authority of a coequal branch of government. It may indeed have been FDR. I suppose I should not be surprised by yet another frightening similarity between the two. Coupled with his arrogant demand that Congress deliver a jobs bill to his desk, I am increasingly alarmed at the astonishing imperial attitude which seems to exude from Mr. Obama.

The only true change I spotted this evening was in the Republican response. Delivering the response in front of a live audience in the Virginia House of Delegates was a splendid change this year. Despite the fact that much of the speech was still pre written, it did respond to parts of the President’s address, and did a lovely job of contrasting the approach of the two parties to our national economic crisis: Democrats believe more government regulation with targeted tax incentives is the answer; Republicans believe government in general should be scaled back and taxes should be lowered across the board. Voters will decide in November which approach sounds more appealing. I have little doubt as to which option they will favor.

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Corporate Political Spending Ban

2010-01-22T05:14:00.001-07:00

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

Honorable Friends:

Do you believe the government should determine what the media can broadcast? Do you believe the government should decide which businesses constitute “media” and which do not? This is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled on yesterday in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. As Justice Kennedy wrote for the conservative majority:

“The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations-- including nonprofit advocacy corporations-- either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U.S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.” 558 U.S. ___ (2010) at 20.

This law, according to the majority opinion, gives rise to “the dangerous, and unacceptable, consequence that Congress could ban political speech of media corporations,” on a whim. Even the People’s Press Collective, as private corporation not classified as traditional media, could have incurred criminal liability for advocating for or against any candidate within the statute’s time frame. Does this frighten you? It should.

The reason for this oppressive law is that it supposedly protects shareholders from being forced to fund political causes with which they disagree. It also prevents the appearance of corruption and quid pro quo arrangements between politicians and corporate interests. Finally, and most importantly, it allegedly prevents the distortion of the election process by the large accumulations of wealth held by corporations.

The Court swiftly dismissed the first two concerns. Corporate shareholders have the option of divesting if they do not like the actions of any particular company. However, even if this were not the case, limiting political speech only in the days immediately prior to an election but at no other time hardly shows a serious concern for shareholder interests. As to quid pro quo arrangements, we already have anti-bribery laws in force. Attempting to go further and prevent mere access or influence is not only impossible, it is an impediment to representative democracy itself. As it is, the law would continue to permit lobbying by those companies wealthy enough to engage in it, but prohibit other companies from engaging in fundamental political advocacy; hardly an equitable arrangement.

In his dissent, Justice Stevens argued passionately, if not plausibly, that the government has a strong interest in preventing the appearance of corruption corporate wealth can create. He further maintained that, as the First Amendment never mentions corporate entities, they should not be entitled to full speech and press protections. In fact, he maintains that corporate speech is adequately protected in the lengthy procedures set up to create 527 groups, PACs, and the cumbersome and expensive filing, reporting, and maintenance requirements such affiliations entail.

The Court maintains, however, that:

“The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day. Prolix laws chill speech for the same reason that vague laws chill speech: People ‘of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application.’ The Government may not render a ban on political speech constitutional by carving out a limited exemption through an amorphous regulatory interpretation.” Id. at 7 (internal citation omitted).

The Court goes on to point out that corporations, as affiliations of individuals, have long enjoyed First Amendment protections. Moreover, the text of the First Amendment itself is not limited to individuals, but protects the freedoms of speech and the press in general. The Court, “rejected the premise that the Government has an interest in equalizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections,” and stated that, “The First Amendment’s protections do not depend on the speaker’s financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Id. at 37 (internal citation omitted).

In short, the First Amendment exists to protect the political speech of citizens, as individuals, groups, or corporations. “By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” Id. at 24.

“The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach. The Government has muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy. And the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function. By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the Government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests. Factions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the remedy of destroying the liberty of some factions is worse than the disease. Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak, and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false.” Id. at 38 (internal citation omitted).

This is as it should be. Despite this, though, the Court still upheld requirements for disclosing donors and issuing disclaimers as to who funds political advertisements. Only Justice Thomas objected to this. He points out the possible chilling effects on speech when activists target political donors with violence and intimidation, saying, “I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the primary object of First Amendment protection.” Id at 6 (Thomas, J., concurring) (internal citation omitted). Thus, he maintains we have still one further step to take on the road to truly free political speech.

As it stands, the Supreme Court has overturned the ban on direct corporate political advocacy. Corporations are still subject to contribution limits in candidate campaigns, as are individuals, and they must still disclose their donors and take credit for any political advertisement they produce. Nonetheless, this decision should be celebrated by anyone who still believes in the First Amendment. Here in Colorado, I am certain some enterprising company will use this decision to overturn our own state ban on direct corporate advocacy, which so closely mirrors federal law. I look forward to that day.

Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Illegals’ Privacy Rights—Correctly

2009-12-15T02:27:00.003-07:00

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

Honorable Friends,

This evening, two of my honorable friends here at the PPC, Ben DeGrow and El Presidente, have called my attention to the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in The People v. Gutierrez, in which a 4-3 majority ruled that the state violated the 4th Amendment privacy rights of the defendant in seizing his tax records without a proper warrant showing probable cause. The defendant also happened to be an illegal immigrant. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, as quoted in The Washington Times, is outraged by the decision and would like our honorable friends at Clear the Bench Colorado (CTBC) to add this case to their ever lengthening list of judicial offenses. Holding the judiciary accountable is a laudable goal, but also one that requires a good deal of thought to accomplish in the interest of fairness and justice. It requires more than cursory analysis and gut reactions. It requires asking whether the Court remained faithful to the Constitution. Contrary to Mr. Tancredo’s objections, I believe CTBC can point to this decision as one in which the Mullarkey majority finally acted correctly.

Facts:

First of all, it is important to understand that anyone in this country, legal or otherwise, has 4th Amendment protections. The 4th Amendment is not limited to citizens, but considered one of the basic rights of humankind. The British once made the mistake of applying its protections only to British citizens, and the colonists responded with the American Revolution. For that reason, the 4th Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Also, it is important to understand that the U.S. expects all people in this country to pay taxes, regardless of immigration status. To accommodate both legal and illegal immigrants who often lack Social Security Numbers (SSN), they are permitted to file taxes with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN).

Now that we have clarified those basic points, allow me to give you a few facts about this case. The Weld County Sheriff’s Department investigated an undocumented immigrant named Servando Trejo on charges of identity theft. Trejo admitted to being an illegal immigrant and that he used a false name and SSN to obtain work. He further informed police that he had filed income taxes using an ITIN rather than the false SSN. He then filed his taxes through Amalia’s Tax Service in Greeley. He said that Amalia’s had helped him obtain the ITIN and implied that all illegal immigrants in the area know to use Amalia’s.

The owner of Amalia’s, told investigators that she often prepared taxes for illegal immigrants. She further speculated that most people applying for ITINs were illegal immigrants and that most of her clients using ITINs have SSNs belonging to someone else.

On the basis of this information, the police secured a warrant to search Amalia’s Tax Service for all tax returns filed in 2006-2007 with ITINs which did not match SSNs on wage earning documents such as W2 forms. They speculated that this would be an effective method to fish for those engaged in identity theft, even calling it “Operation Numbers Game.” Unfortunately, the files were not kept by date, but by client. Thus, the police seized all 5000 client files. They proceeded to examine each file, irrespective of the date limitation in the warrant. One file with a mismatch between SSN and ITIN belonged to Ricardo Gutierrez, who was subsequently charged with identity theft. He argued, however, that the police violated his 4th Amendment rights in obtaining this evidence and should be barred from using it. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with him.

The Right to Privacy and Probable Cause:

The Court’s reasoning is fairly simple. Most people expect their tax records to be fairly confidential. After all, they contain so much information about income, investments, property, family, et cetera as to paint a fairly basic picture of our lives. We do not want just anyone to have access to that. We do not even want any government agency to have access to that at will. Thus, the 4th Amendment, bolstered by Congress’s specific legislation, ensures that our tax papers enjoy the same privacy as we would have in our own home.

Of course, this means that, to invade our privacy, the police need specific warrants. They cannot simply say, “We want all tax records,” and hope they find something interesting. They have to have some reasonable and specific suspicion first, and identify us as particular suspects before they go rummaging about our things. This is the nature of probable cause, and exactly what the police failed to achieve in this case. Instead, they went fishing.

The warrant the police obtained was not limited to their original suspect. They did not even limit themselves to the dates the warrant specified. They examined all files of every individual client despite the fact they had no basis to suspect any of those individuals of wrongdoing. For these reasons, the warrant was overly broad, utterly eviscerating the purposes of the 4th Amendment. No reasonable police officer could have thought such a blatant fishing expedition would be valid. If it were, police might as well start randomly inspecting homes to see if they find any evidence of illegal activity. Dreadful thought.

In the dissent, Justice Coats makes the point that the police did have probable cause to suspect that the owner of Amalia’s knowingly aided and abetted instances of identity theft if she knew some of the SSNs were false. As such, the police could have obtained a warrant to search for mismatched ITINs and SSNs which would indicate a pattern of fraud on the part of Amalia’s. This would have allowed them to conduct the search exactly as they did—but this time without violations of the 4th Amendment.

However, this is not what happened. Neither the police nor the district attorney even suggested any wrongdoing on the part of Amalia’s. They were interested only in fishing for possible but unknown wrongdoing on the part of Amalia’s unidentified clients. Justice Coats fails to recognize that fact and Justice Bender’s majority opinion is correct to distinguish it. Although a search for fraud on the part of Amalia’s Tax Services would have provided the same information as an unspecified search of unknown clients in an attempt to find evidence of wrongdoing, the former has probable cause to support it while the latter is supported by nothing but the arbitrary will of law enforcement. Though the distinction is fine, it is also of vital importance. And that, my honorable friends, is the difference between a republic of laws and the tyranny of a police state.

Understand the Financial Crisis: The Lie of Recovery Will Devastate the Unprepared

2009-12-08T04:55:00.000-07:00

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

Honorable Friends:

At the People’s Press Collective Reeducation camp this past weekend, I was pleased to see so many people gathered to learn how to become more effective advocates for the cause of restraining government, promoting individual liberty, and restoring free markets. Truly, an army of Davids is indeed rising to oppose the Goliath of obscenely bloated government. Those who attended this camp hardly needed to be told that the U.S. government has become the biggest liar in the history of the world; they attended the camp to gain the tools needed to begin correcting that problem. They face an uphill battle, though. I was horrified to hear that at least a few of our government’s lies had penetrated even the PPC camp when one of the attendees claimed that, with the nation now in recovery, it is critical to elect Republicans so as to resist any further bailouts and allow the recovery trend to continue.

Make no mistake: whatever illusion of recovery we have entered into is just that—an illusion. Nothing has been altered in the fundamentals of our economic situation. In fact, we have done substantial damage to the soundness of our currency and the wealth of our people, leaving us in a much weaker position to face the problems quickly rushing toward us. Those who do not prepare themselves and their families now are likely to be ruined in the coming economic storms. The Obama Administration’s assurances that we are in recovery may be one of the most atrocious lies ever told in a long history of deceptions.

I wish I could agree with my honorable friend in thinking that merely electing Republicans will offer a solution to this problem. Yet, many in the Tea Party movement correctly understand that Republicans have been almost indistinguishable from Democrats in their profligate spending practices. Many of them voted in lock step with Democrats as Congress issued one bailout after another, assaulted our civil liberties, dismantled the free market, and shredded the Constitution.

While it is true that no Democrat will ever reform this obscenity, we can no longer afford the Good Old Boy mentality of deal making, back scratching, entitlement, and the politics of pull that has too long infected the GOP. We require men and women of true principle. Merely demanding principled politicians, however, will do nothing unless we understand the nature of the problem ourselves, and can hold our politicians accountable in how they address it. Otherwise, we are simply asking to be lied to once more.

At the PPC Camps, several attendees have asked me where they can obtain concise, reliable, and comprehensive explanations for our economic situations and what each of us can do to prepare ourselves and our families. In answer, I strongly recommend viewing the free "Crash Course" by Mr. Chris Martenson. Even if you have no background in economics, finance, or natural resources, you will find Mr. Martenson’s webinar easy to understand. His advice will leave you in a better position than many who graduate college with Economics majors. After that you may want to move on to "Smoke and Mirrors: The Story of Fiat Currency Abuse," a webinar presented by Richard Karn of Emerging Trends Report and hosted by the Bullion Management Group, Inc. While parts of this may be a bit dense, especially at the beginning, I advise you to stick with it. You will have a good grasp of our financial situation by the end.

These two webinars will give you the basic knowledge you need if you want to have any hope of holding our Republican candidates to anything resembling real principles. We cannot afford to get it wrong anymore. We cannot continue to watch our government pervert capitalism in favor of unequal patronage whereby favored insiders profit while all others struggle. We cannot allow our government to burn the savings of our people and spend away the wealth of this nation to leave our children, for the first time in U.S. history, a standard of living which is less than our own. We cannot let our government continue to weaken what should be the greatest nation on earth.

Child Safety Standards And The Idiocy of ABC

2009-11-25T01:58:00.002-07:00

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

Honorable Friends:

I know better. I really do. In truth, I was simply trying to be polite. Nonetheless, I opened the email from my honorable friend, clicked on the link, and suffered through a clip of ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson, a man who somehow manages to look grave while pronouncing utter rubbish.

The clip in question, "Lagging Safety Standards for Baby Products," was not news, but rather an inexcusably fear mongering advocacy piece calling for greater government regulation in response to the recent crib recall. My honorable friend sent it along to me in the hope that I could explain why the federal government does not already set strict safety standards for baby products.

Contrary to ABC’s histrionics over what it sees as a complete lack of regulation, the federal government does indeed impose rather exacting safety standards upon manufacturers and retailers of child products. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) stands as just one example of such regulation. This is nothing to celebrate, however. The CPSIA serves only to impose crippling costs on business, and actually undermines the safety of the children it purports to protect. All it successfully does is increase the size, scope, and power of government. Only Mr. Gibson could breathe a solemn sigh of relief over that. Sensible people should be alarmed.

The Economic Costs of Regulation

The economic costs of the CPSIA are fairly obvious. The CPSIA requires that any product intended for the use of children under age 12 must be tested by a third party and certified for safety under standards promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (the Commission). Other than prohibiting excessive levels of dangerous substances such as lead or phthalates, the CPSIA leaves it to the Commission to define and set safety standards. Once certified, a manufacturer must affix a proper label to each of its products. Even without knowing what additional testing standards the Commission will impose, this third party testing, certification, and labeling requirement imposes enormous expense.

For a large toy manufacturer such as Hasbro, these additional expenses, though irksome, are manageable. The company will simply pass the costs along to consumers, and young parents, struggling to pay bills, will marvel at the outrageous prices of baby products while no doubt cursing the "greedy" corporate executives they mistakenly blame for the cost. The consumer suffers, but the large company may survive with less profit. A small business, however, will suffer even more.

A stay at home mother who designs and creates baby bibs for her own children, then has them manufactured for public sale, will suddenly find her business faced with expensive new testing requirements for every fabric she uses, for every fastening device and material she attaches, and for any pacifier or toy she may include with the sale of such a creation. It makes no difference that she thoroughly researched the safest types of products and materials for use in her designs. She must meet the requirements of the regulations, though the cost of doing so is greater than all the revenue of her small start-up company. The time commitment alone is more than she has as a new mother. So she closes her business. Others like her are prevented from entering the market at all. Government has just set a high wealth barrier to market entry.

Regulation’s Cost to Safety

Perhaps even more worrying than the financial costs of the CPSIA, though, is the damage it does to the cause of child safety. This may seem counterintuitive given that CPSIA is intended to do the exact opposite. Make no mistake, though, the existence of the CPSIA ensures that baby products will be less safe than they would be without the CPSIA.

If the CPSIA and its like did not exist, children would not be in any imminent danger. Rather, the safety of products would be determined by the courts. If a child were injured by any given product, and the parents brought suit against the manufacturer, a judge would look to see whether the manufacturer knew, or should have known, that the product could be expected to cause injury. A judge would hold a manufacture responsible for knowing the best practices of his or her industry. Thus, even if a particular manufacturer was ignorant of a product defect or risk which others in the industry had discovered and corrected, he or she would still be held responsible in tort (and sometimes under criminal law) for failing to maintain best practices. The beauty of this system is that the safety standard is always rising as the industry gains new information. Manufacturers have great incentive to keep up with or exceed best practices as punitive damages can put them out of business and the safest products have great marketing appeal.

The CPSIA changes all that. Under the CPSIA, the Commission sets industry standards by law. That then becomes the minimum safety level, and as long as a manufacturer meets the legal standards for its products, it cannot be held liable for the injuries its products may cause. The industry may, in fact, develop best practices far in excess of the safety standard set by law. However, as these standards are more costly and the law does not require them, many manufacturers will not use them in the production of their goods. While the Commission will attempt to issue regulations modified for industry development, it cannot possibly keep pace. It is but one underfunded government agency charged with setting standards for millions of baby products in the industry. Inevitably, its regulations will lag by many years. That is the sole point ABC correctly reported. The government, acting through the Commission, cannot possibly set safety standards as exacting or as efficiently as the industry itself through the proper operation of our court system and the market.

ABC and Mr. Gibson seem to think government must involve itself in everything we do for our own good—especially to protect the children. As I hope you see here, though, further government regulation of child safety standards actually leaves our children more vulnerable while imposing crippling costs on our small businesses. Just ask yourself: do you want the products your child uses to be subject to the highest standards the market and toy industry can offer? Or do you really want to leave your child’s safety at the bottom of a federal bureaucrat’s inbox?

GOB United; GOP Undecided

2009-11-24T04:28:00.003-07:00

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

Honorable Friends:

I learned from yesterday’s front page headline of The Denver Post that my party now stands united behind Atty. Scott McInnis in the Colorado gubernatorial race. Odd that. I used to think we had primary elections for this sort of thing, but it seems they have fallen out of fashion in Colorado. It is, after all, far more efficient for the Party’s leaders to simply anoint a candidate. I am certain that Mr. Dan Maes would be overjoyed to know that he need not bother with a primary. Afflicted with the woeful ignorance of fashion so typical of Republicans these days, however, he still seems to be campaigning. I am sure someone will point out the faux pas, though.

I also learned that we have a new platform, again courtesy of Atty. McInnis and the GOP leadership, saving the rest of us a great deal of time and consideration. The Post even published a nice ten point summary of it on the front page. In fact, many of my Independent and Democrat friends called to chat about these bullets before I even finished reading the article. Although they are each greatly dissatisfied with Gov. Bill Ritter, and despite the fact that they agree with most of those ten points listed in the article, my honorable friends told me they were going to abstain from voting entirely, or else reluctantly support Mr. Ritter again, due to the fact that two of those bullet points were dedicated, yet again, to social issues. They had hoped the GOP would focus entirely on economic and liberty issues.

Hoping to restore the confidence of my honorable friends in the GOP’s potential, I visited Atty. McInnis’s web page to examine the full text of this new platform. Interestingly, what I found was substantially different from what the Post article reported. The Post reports that this new, “Contract for Colorado” includes promises to appoint conservative judges to state courts, to establish a school voucher program, to restore Former Gov. Owens’s ban on state funding for Planned Parenthood, and to establish a general statement defending the sanctity of human life.

In contrast, the “Platform for Prosperity,” on Atty. McInnis’s web page makes no mention of judges or the judicial system whatsoever. It speaks of school vouchers not at all. While it does indeed promise to revive the Owens era ban on state funding for abortion providers, a general statement defending the sanctity of human life is nowhere to be found.

I do not know whether these discrepancies are the result of poor reporting on the part of the Post, or whether Atty. McInnis and the GOP leadership who authored this plan simply provided the Post with faulty information. However, with such noticeable inconsistencies in the commitments of Atty. McInnis and the Party leadership, I can hardly blame my honorable friends for being distrustful. Indeed, many Republicans remain wary as well. Whatever they may think of any particular issue, they have had few reasons to trust the Party leadership and its mothballed candidates who so often seem far more interested in the politics of pull than in principled policy.

While it may be true that the Good Old Boys (GOB) of the Party leadership have united behind Atty. McInnis, the Grand Old Party (GOP) remains undecided and skeptical. Moreover, as the GOP has never been known for its fashion sense, it may well ignore the new trend against primary elections and continue to consider the candidacy of Mr. Maes. If Atty. McInnis truly wishes to unify the GOP and Independents in support of his candidacy, he should strive to show firm and consistent commitment to principle. That has never been his strong point, but I have always believed people are capable of positive change.

People’s Press Collective Re|Education Camp

2009-11-17T21:13:00.001-07:00

What: People’s Press Collective ReEducation Camp

Who: You and anyone else who wants to do more than whine about what is happening to this country.

Why: Because you cannot trust leaders in Washington to govern for you. You must make your own voice heard. Come learn the most effective methods of becoming active in grassroots politics and advocacy.

The seminar covers Internet Activism through blogging, Facebook, Twitter, podcasts, and social networks.

Acquire the technical skills needed for Search Engine Optimization, identity management video broadcasting, and wikis.

Learn the legal issues affecting activists regarding 1st Amendment rights, Defamation issues, the Colorado Open Records Act, and dealing with confrontations and police.

Republican Consultant Christine Burtt will also deliver a special session on political messaging to ensure you reach your audience effectively without causing offense.

When: 5 December 2009. Check in at 8:30. The seminar starts promptly at 9:00 am.

Where: Colorado Christian University, Beckham Center room 210, 8787 West Alameda Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado.

How: Go to the People’s Press Collective, RSVP, and pay the $50.00 registration fee online.

Hate Crimes: Killing Both Liberty and Equality

2009-10-30T04:25:00.001-06:00

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

Honorable Friends:

Stunned. Appalled. Deeply saddened. Angry. I remember feeling all of these emotions as I watched the tragic story of Matthew Shepard’s brutal slaying unfold in the media back in 1998. It was with great satisfaction that I watched the conviction and incarceration of his murderers. I thought that would be the end of it. Unfortunately, I forgot that a terrible emotional tragedy often leads to a terrible legal tragedy.

Yesterday, a friend called to gush happily that President Obama just signed new hate crimes legislation into law, which includes sexual orientation in its protections. He was surprised that I did not share his enthusiasm and wondered how someone who supports gay rights could fail to be pleased by this outcome. In truth, I support equal rights for all individuals. I believe every individual has the right to determine the nature and type of their intimate relations, their associations, and how to use and dispose of their own property without government interference. Because of this, I have often supported gay rights efforts. However, what right does hate crimes legislation protect?

Hate crimes legislation does not protect any right whatsoever. On the contrary, it is a prohibition. But what exactly does it prohibit? Certainly, it does not prohibit any action. Indeed, we already have a comprehensive body of law prohibiting assault, battery, murder, rape, et cetera. Hate crimes legislation does not add to this list. Rather, it criminalizes the thoughts of the defendant committing these already established crimes.

My honorable friend argued that our legal system already imposes greater or lesser punishments based on a defendant’s mental state, so I should not be overly concerned with this addition to our legal process. This is not entirely accurate, though. Consider the following two cases:

In the first case, John and Eric are playing hockey. At the end of the game, John manages to steal the puck right out from under Eric’s nose and score the winning goal. In a fit of blind rage, Eric leaps upon John and beats him to death with his hockey stick.

In the second case, John and Eric have just attended a lively Political Science class at their college, where John expressed several views Eric detested. Determining that John should be taught a lesson, Eric hid in some bushes and ambushed John as he walked back to his apartment. He then proceeded to beat John to death.

Under our legal system, Eric committed murder in both of these cases. However, in the first case, he flew into a blind rage where passion, not reason, guided his actions. Consequently, we impose a lesser penalty than in the second case, where he clearly plotted the crime and intended to commit murder. Thus, our legal system judges the defendant’s mental state of intent. We do not normally criminalize his thoughts.

Now consider the same two cases, but assume that John is gay and Eric is homophobic. Has anything really changed? Is John any more dead, or Eric any guiltier of murder than in the first two cases? No. Under hate crimes laws, however, Eric is guilty of having thoughts and values the government finds objectionable, and so his punishment is increased. This is why hate crimes legislation is so dangerous. It presumes to regulate that which should be beyond the reach of any government: our thoughts and values. That is not where the danger ends, though. Perversely, hate crimes legislation also means that, as a gay man, John’s life is more valuable to society than the lives of other men who may be straight, and thus do not share John’s increased legal protections. This is not Justice. It is patently immoral.

A society of equals cannot exist when the laws unequally value lives. A free society cannot exist where a government has the right to criminalize thought. While I agree that homophobic people are ridiculously small minded and hateful, I cannot bring myself to criminalize their thoughts and values on that subject. I remember all too well the days when homosexuals and anyone sympathetic to them was viewed by governments and society as perverse, deviant, and indeed, criminal. This reasoning applies to any hate crimes legislation, whether it is intended to protect race, religion, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation. The right to determine ones own values and thoughts, however objectionable others may find them, is fundamentally necessary to maintain a free society and public discourse. Contrary to what my honorable friend mistakenly believed, anyone who supports gay rights, or indeed any individual rights, should not be celebrating the expansion of hate crimes legislation; they should be trying to repeal these legal abominations entirely.

No group of people can gain acceptance through force of law. They only succeed in destroying their own liberties and becoming the oppressors they once fought. They should instead endeavor to maintain equal rights for all, and rely on persuasion to alter the opinion of their fellow citizens.

If there is such a thing as a Devil, I doubt he ever appears in flames with cloven hooves and frightening horns. It seems to me he would be beautiful and seemingly benign. In our society, the greatest devil of all is the government. Hundreds of smiling men and women, in both Congress and the executive branch, frequently offer to solve all our problems with a seemingly benign law or regulation. All it costs is our liberty and equality, the soul of the United States.

Meghann Silverthorn for Douglas County School Board

2009-10-20T17:17:00.003-06:00

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

Honorable friends:

This election cycle, the People’s Press Collective has fielded one of its own as a candidate. Meghann Campos Silverthorn, a long time writer for the PPC and Slapstick Politics, is campaigning to serve on the Douglas County Board of Education here in Colorado.

Over the years, I have come to view most candidates with a rather jaundiced eye. I can scarcely count the number of times I have been disappointed. No matter what principles candidates draw their sound bites from, their underlying motivation always seems to be self aggrandizement—and principles are the first things they sacrifice in their drive to be popular, powerful, bipartisan, a compromise broker, or whatever else they envision for themselves. I know I am not alone when I see the latest political ads, chuckle, and file them appropriately in my wastepaper basket. This is the type of politics we have all come to expect. Thus, I was completely stunned when my old friend, Meghann Silverthorn dropped into my parlor to tell me that she intended to run for school board. I do believe I dropped my crumpet, which of course fell straight into my tea and made a right mess. People should really give warnings before making the world stand on its head.

You see, Meghann Silverthorn is not your average politician. Everything about her is unique. The daughter of diplomats, she grew up in embassies and schools all around the world. Her early life reads much like an adventuresome travel journal. Some of those adventures are splendid and exciting. Others, however, are so terrible that I have rarely met anyone who would have more right to call herself a victim—but Meghann has never done so. In fact, she claims that if she ever allowed herself to feel like a victim, she probably would not be alive today. Her personal strength is astonishing.

Her intellect is equally impressive. Already blessed with extreme intelligence, she supports her natural gifts with a master’s degree in Public Policy, and bachelor’s degrees in both Political Science and Aerospace Engineering (yes, she actually is a rocket scientist). She also has more than passing familiarity with Austrian School Economics, and her international background, especially in socialist nations, showed her exactly why the principles of the free market and individual liberty cannot be ignored.

Her strength and intellect combine to make her one of the most principled people I have had the honor of knowing. I first met her while she served as a student administrator at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I recall her sitting at budget meetings where millions of dollars would be allocated to various programs and fees and tuition would be raised or lowered accordingly. While administrators and student activists would give long-winded, self-important speeches in support of various programs, Meghann would sit quietly listening and, of all things, knitting. When she had heard enough, she would set her knitting needles aside and ask a question which would often take the administration completely off guard and leave them stammering. She seemed to have a way of finding efficient ways of achieving goals without raising costs and, as often as possible, actually cutting costs. She simply refused to believe that funding higher education required bankrupting students and their families. University administration always seemed to view her questions and comments with complete surprise, yet her suggestions often ended debate and swayed the vote. She would then go back to knitting.

Despite her quiet ways, even then she was passionate about the quality of education the university provided. She constantly crusaded to add curriculum to the College of Engineering and even helped to push for what eventually became a complete curriculum overhaul of the College of Arts and Sciences in order to increase educational rigor.

Meghann has been a good friend for many years, and the hours we have spent discussing principles of individual liberty, fundamentals of good economic policy, and quality in education are now beyond count. After so many discussions, it was no surprise to me to see the key issues of her campaign:

preserving and improving parental choice for educational options,
improving transparency and accountability in school administration and financing,
and demanding increased educational rigor in all areas, especially in math and science.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Meghann will be an effective advocate for all these things.

Indeed, my only frustration is, oddly, that Meghann is not a typical politician. While she never fails to make an appearance at meet and greet functions, it goes against her nature to show up at gatherings, foist herself into people’s conversations, promote her platform, and ask for money. She thinks it seems pushy, arrogant, and intrusive. While I may agree, I have often threatened to get her a hand held sign (think Loony Tunes’ Wile E Coyote) reading, “Shy candidate; please donate.” Nonetheless, although this may drive supporters like me to shake our heads in exasperation, it is also proof that this is not a self-promoting politician as usual. Rather, Meghann Silverthorn stands as a woman of exemplary principles and humility, genuinely dedicated to ensuring the best quality in our educational system, both in rigor and administration.

It is my great honor to write this endorsement for Meghann Silverthorn on behalf of the entire People’s Press Collective. It is actually astonishing that such a fine person is willing to involve herself in politics at all. If the world were operating normally, such an individual would stay as far away from politics as possible. Happily, though, the world is standing on its head, my crumpet is swimming, and my tea is mucking about on the floor rather than remaining in my cup where it belongs. Instead of mopping up, I think I shall add to the mess by popping a few bottles of Champagne in celebration as I imagine Meghann quietly knitting the way to educational excellence on the Douglas County school board.

Obama's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009: What You Don't Know May Kill You

2009-07-29T08:30:00.003-06:00

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

Honorable Friends:

Yesterday, the people of Denver demonstrated that they have far more sense than their Congresswoman does when 700 of them rallied on the State Capitol steps to voice their opposition to President Obama’s health care bill.

The President has been working hard in recent weeks to persuade us that such opposition is unfounded. In his recent prime time press conference, he soothingly told us that this legislation would help reduce the costs of health care. He went on to assure us that we would all be able to keep our current health care plans and would not be forced onto government programs. In conclusion, he promised that health policy would be free from congressional meddling, as it would be overseen by a nonpartisan committee of medical experts whose recommendations would have to be accepted or rejected in their entirety by Congress. He said all of this with a straight face. None of it is true.

As a former Constitutional Law instructor, Mr. Obama knows that Congress’s legislative authority cannot be limited in such a way. Had Mr. Obama actually read the text of the bill, he also would have known that it allows people to keep their own health care plans only so long as they stay with their current plans. If they try to change their plans, they are indeed forced onto the government’s program. He certainly knew, though, that the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, estimated that the bill actually increases costs of health care and enlarges the federal deficit by billions of dollars.

Denver Representative Diana DeGette, apparently a very credulous person and far too busy to read the 1000+ pages of the bill for herself, has taken the President at his word and maintains that there is a need to pass the bill immediately. Unfortunately, the arguments she uses to support the urgent need for legislation are rooted almost entirely in myths about our health care system; myths Dr. Clifford S. Asness easily and entertainingly debunks in his essay, “Health Care Mythology.” Fortunately, the American people are not so easily duped.

Money Morning and Stephen Hyde both point out some of the most egregious financial problems with this bill. As Hyde asserts, “The bill requires virtually all employers to offer minimum health benefit plans that far exceed anything most of them offer today.” This will necessarily increase insurance costs. As Money Morning shows, it also has a more devastating aspect. Under the legislation, any business that cannot afford to provide the extensive coverage the bill requires will be taxed up to 8% of its payroll. This will almost immediately result in severe wage reductions and layoffs as businesses attempt to defray that cost. This hardly seems like the best idea as the nation struggles for economic recovery. Yet, this is not the worst the bill has to offer.

Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman), has diligently combed through the legislation and assembled a brief, line-by-line cheat sheet. His full analysis, “The HC Monstrosity-All 1,018 Pages,” can be found at his blog. While somewhat cursory, Mr. Fleckstein successfully highlights some alarming details in the legislation. To list just a few, the bill provides for:

Nationwide government access to our private healthcare and financial records, as well as our bank accounts.
Exemption from judicial review of the prices government sets on health care.
Government wage controls over physicians, as well as limitations on physician ownership of hospitals and other health care providers.
Mandates for end of life care and consultations without benefit of legal counsel.
Government interference in marriage counseling and childcare.
Government appointed standards and rationing for what treatments we may receive.
No private option if you leave your current insurance carrier.

These are just a few of the many devilish details hidden within Mr. Obama’s Affordable Health Choices Act. It seems unlikely that any sane person, after reading this bill, could support its passage. That may be exactly why Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate wanted to push it through so quickly.

The American people need to know the horrors contained within this bill. Health care represents 20% of our economy. That economy is now suffering a soft depression. If we truly desire health care reform, we deserve much better than what Mr. Obama is offering. This bill’s financial aspects alone have the potential to drive us into an unbearably hard depression, to say nothing of the damage it does to personal liberties. We cannot afford to make such massive changes to such a large portion of our economy with so little knowledge or time to review. All concerned Americans should contact their congress people and demand an end to this abominable and irresponsible legislation.

The ‘Change’ of Obama’s Foreign Policy: Talk to Enemies; Insult Allies

2009-03-10T20:19:00.001-06:00

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

Honorable friends:

I think it is fair to say that when the American people elected President Obama, part of the ‘change’ they sought was in our diplomatic approach. Even I, struggling to find something to be happy about in this last election, told myself that at least Mr. Obama is unlikely to embarrass himself diplomatically as George Bush was so fond of doing. Perhaps, I thought, we would no longer have to suffer through articles about our President trying to massage the shoulders of Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel. That may have been wishful thinking given the recent diplomatic gaffes coming out of the Obama administration.

Take Hillary Clinton’s recent gift to Russia, for instance: a symbolic reset button. It was meant to represent a departure from the Bush administration’s confrontational attitude and effectively begin a new and friendlier relationship with Russia. The button read “Reset,” in English, but in Russian it apparently read, “Overcharge,” much to the embarrassment of Mrs. Clinton. Although I must say, “Overcharge,” seems to be a more accurate representation of what the Obama administration is doing, it is an appalling display of ineptitude on the part of our diplomatic corps. Even if the State Department is, for some inexplicable reason, suffering a shortage of agents literate in Russian, one would think they would at least have the presence of mind to go out and look at a Russian video game console, find the reset button, and copy the word. I dare say one of our adolescent gamers could have done a better job of it. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton’s error was quite minor when compared to the miserable display put on by Mr. Obama himself in receiving Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain.

During the Clinton and Bush (I & II) administrations, a visit from our closest and strongest ally’s head of governments was marked with a joint press conference, a reception at Camp David, and a formal dinner. Not so in the Obama administration, which made no arrangement for any of these things. Unfazed though, Mr. Brown pressed on and presented Mr. Obama with a pen holder made from the wood of the HMS Gannet, a ship used in fighting the slave trade. Its sister ship, HMS Resolute, provided the wood to make just two desks: one belongs to Queen Elizabeth II, the other sits in the Oval Office. In return, Mr. Obama presented the Prime Minister with a set of 25 DVDs of American movies. As if this were not tacky enough, they are American DVDs and do not play in British DVD players. He also returned the bronze bust of Winston Churchill that has been in the Oval Office since Tony Blair presented it to us after the 9/11 attacks. As reported by the New York Daily News, the British People were incensed at the slights.

Not to be outdone, Michelle Obama’s gifts to the Brown children were in equally bad taste. The Times of London reported that Mrs. Brown presented the Obamas’ daughters with, “really nice presents. A bit of thought had clearly gone into choosing them: Top Shop dresses (with matching necklaces) and a selection of books by British authors.” In return, Mrs. Obama gave the Browns’ sons toy models of Marine One, the presidential helicopter. “Short of giving the boys Action Man models of her own husband smiting the evil forces of neoconservatism,” said The Times, “Mrs Obama’s gesture could not have been more solipsistic or more inherently dismissive of Mrs Brown.” The Daily Telegraph’s James Delingpole is now calling Mrs. Obama ‘Lady MacBeth.’

According to The Telegraph, The White House explained that Mr. Obama was simply too exhausted from dealing with the economic crisis to bother with the “diplomatic niceties of the special relationship” with Britain. The Telegraph quoted one American official who noted that, so far, Mr. Obama has failed to "even fake an interest in foreign policy." Most disturbingly the Telegraph cited a State Department official who articulated the new administration’s view of Britain by saying, “There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment.” If this statement true, it is a wretched thing to stay of our strongest and most loyal ally. Glenn Beck may be correct in calling on us to write the British Embassy to apologize for our President’s appalling manners.

However, such an attitude may explain why The Times reports Britain is also finding it “unbelievably difficult” to deal with the Obama administration in planning the G20 summit or get clarity on what Obama wants to do to rescue the world’s economies.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has announced his plans to reach out diplomatically to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Do recall that the Taliban is a fundamentalist Islamic movement that supports Sharia law and a medieval view of human rights while endorsing Osama bin Laden and jihadist actions against the United States. This is apparently the ‘change’ Obama promised us with respect to foreign policy: hold talks with avowed enemies and insult our greatest allies. If Mr. Obama treats the Taliban leaders in the same way he has treated the Prime Minister of England, I expect they will be issuing a new fatwa against the United States in the very near future.

How to Craft a Stimulus if You Absolutely Must & Why Obama’s Will Fail

2009-02-10T08:00:00.001-07:00

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

Honorable friends:

Last night, sounding quite defensive, President Obama gave a press conference to resentfully explain his stimulus package to the nation and insist that it be passed without further delays or questions—or we risk catastrophe. So much for the change we were promised. I have heard this tune before, from Mr. Bush. Pass the Patriot Act immediately for the safety of all Americans; yet we ended up mutilating the Constitution and the Supreme Court is still performing reconstructive surgery. We must invade Iraq or be destroyed by WMDs; but there were no WMDs. We must pass the TARP bailout now or the economy will collapse; and it is still collapsing with no sign of recovery on the horizon. Now our Dear Leader, singing the same song with a new voice, wants us to pass an even bigger ‘stimulus’ package lest the economy collapse . . . further. Whenever a politician asks to be trusted on faith alone and for action to be taken without delay or question, that is the time to settle comfortably into your chair, pull out your spectacles, and peruse the supposedly vital proposal most closely. So far, I have not found much to be pleased with—starting with the pork.

Mr. Obama’s claim that the stimulus bill does not contain pork is laughable. While it does not contain any earmarks inserted by individual lawmakers, it does fund a host of local projects that look identical to traditional earmarks. This might not be so objectionable if the projects stood a chance of building an economic infrastructure that generated more wealth than we are spending. It does not. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of this bill alone will increase our annual budget deficits by $884 billion over the next ten years. It represents approximately one tenth of our GDP. Add to that the $9 trillion we have spent on prior bailouts and federal backstopping and we have devoted almost our entire GDP to deficit spending on bailouts. Thus, the stimulus will hurt us, not help us.

The money for this cannot even be financed with debt any longer. U.S. Treasury bonds are becoming increasingly difficult to sell as the world loses confidence in our ability to handle our massive debt. As such, the U.S. must either raise taxes or print the money. Even the Democrats seem to be leery of raising taxes during such hard times, which means the money must be printed. As Dick Army has stated in The Wall Street Journal, “If the government prints the money, it will increase inflation, which will decrease the value of the dollar. That would, in effect, rob Paul to pay Paul back with devalued currency.

“Taking money out of the private economy -- either through taxes or inflation -- and spending it in a way that doesn't offset the loss of money with real economic gains is worse than doing nothing.”

Doing nothing is exactly what some economists argue would be best right now, given the damage the current stimulus could do. Even those economists who want to see some sort of stimulus are not confident in Mr. Obama’s plan and certainly against taking any overly hasty action to pass it. On the right, Martin Feldstein argues that “The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big but that it delivers too little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit. It is worth taking the time to get it right.” On the left, former CBO Director Alice Rivlin echoes the need to carefully consider the stimulus and its long and short term goals, warning that acting too quickly on one giant bill could ensure that “money will be wasted because the investment elements were not carefully crafted,” and, “that it will be harder to return to fiscal discipline as the economy recovers if the longer run spending is not offset by reductions or new revenues.”

These economists are correct. Too much is at stake to rush into this massive stimulus package just because Mr. Obama wants his first hundred days to be wildly productive. A good stimulus plan should include a large reduction in taxation so as to free up money for investment. Currently, the tax cuts in Mr. Obama’s package are too small and too brief to have any real effect. Second, a good stimulus should focus heavily on infrastructure and production. Currently, the stimulus bill devotes only about 5% of its spending to true infrastructure. The great bulk goes to social service spending such as unemployment, food stamps, et cetera. While such social service spending may be noble, as Jim Puplava has stated on the “Financial Sense Newshour,” it is like giving people fish instead of teaching them how to fish. Once they have eaten the fish, they will be hungry again.

When Japan experienced its terrible recession of the 90’s, its government quadrupled its debt in an attempt to spend its way to recovery through public works. The effort failed. Only when Japan reinvested in infrastructure, boosted productive capacity, and started selling their products to China did they begin to recover. In short, they had to create a “fishing industry,” rather than just distribute fish. America, too, must create a “fishing industry” if it wants to recover. The current stimulus contains nowhere near enough infrastructure spending and virtually nothing that could boost our productive capacity.

Even if these deficiencies were corrected though, the problem of financing any stimulus with our massive debt remains. The people supervising the process are still the same people who failed to see the problem coming, who failed to manage the first bailouts effectively, and who now fail to properly pay their own taxes. No one in Washington is even attempting to reform the banking and securities laws or the Federal Reserve’s meddling which brought us here. Trust has been lost. Moreover, the U.S. cannot possibly afford the trillions of dollars it would take to counter the contraction in consumer spending. We are entering a depression, characterized by massive deleveraging. The stimulus, as written, is doomed to failure and, at this point, can only add to our woes. Truly, it would be better to do nothing and allow the market to purge itself.

None of this, of course, will stop our government from passing the stimulus package. That will require a great deal of anger on the part of the people. Ben DeGrow of Mount Virtus has issued an appeal to speak out against it and I echo that call. We will not be able to stop it entirely, but we might convince Congress to take the advice of Ms. Rivlin and Mr. Feldstein to continue working on it for a while so that it is not a complete shambles.

Global Warming: Policy Change, Not Climate Change, Is the Real Danger

2009-01-28T16:26:00.002-07:00

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

Honorable friends:

Global warming does indeed seem to be a pervasive problem. Yesterday it plagued me in my morning paper, harangued me from radio and television broadcasts, and even managed to insinuate itself into the conversation of irksome social acquaintances. Although I have become accustomed to bad policy masquerading as good science, and even look forward to reading my Global-Warming-Article-of-the-Day in the paper, yesterday’s news was particularly insufferable.

Todd Hartman of The Rocky Mountain News started it off, trumpeting Dr. Susan Solomon’s new pronouncement that CO2 emissions “will irreversibly change the planet,” for centuries to come no matter what we do. I suppose someone should suggest to Dr. Solomon that, if she has noticed human behavior has little to no impact on climate change, it might be because the whole things is part of the earth’s natural and periodic cycles. However, I was rather hoping her pronouncement might end the climate change squawking; after all, she does not seem to have much hope that there is anything more to be done. Alas, fortune is not so kind.

True believers never lose hope, and so NPR did its best to keep the faith alive by broadcasting proposed solutions. It seems a few members of the scientific community were watching “The Simpsons” and drew a bit too much inspiration from Mr. Burn’s attempt to block the sun by raising a giant metal disk over Springfield. Of course, the earth is a lot bigger than the town of Springfield, and thus there would have to be quite a few of these disks launched into orbit before we could block enough sunlight to begin cooling the earth. The disks would also have to be replaced occasionally as they fell out of orbit. The real sticking point is the cost, which is currently several trillion dollars. It is always unfortunate when mere economics gets in the way of good Simpsons . . . or science rather.

Another absurd proposal NPR and others have deigned to promulgate, involves launching sulfur particles into the atmosphere. This, would be far cheaper than the Mr. Burns plan, and would sufficiently darken the sky to promote global cooling. Unfortunately, it may also severely change weather patterns, increase acid rain, and—oh yes—darken the sky. No one quite knows how many species of animal and plant life would be devastated from a decrease in light sufficient to cool the earth. It might eventually leave the world a barren wasteland, but everyone agrees it would be a cooling barren wasteland.

Fortunately, it is only bureaucrats like those running the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who seem to use middle school science fair projects as the standard for publishable research. The IPCC’s report, which was authored by a mere 52 scientists, was widely touted as representing the final and absolute conviction among the scientific community that Global Warming is the result of human produced CO2 emissions. Instead, the Republican minority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), has soundly refuted this in its Minority Report, which cites over 650 scientists, all contesting the IPCC’s claims.

One of the more interesting dissenters is Dr. Don Easterbrook, whose study of the climate indicates normal and alternating periods of warming and cooling stretching back for millennia. Not only does Dr. Easterbrook contest the idea that Global Warming is caused by humans, after looking at the sun’s recent activity and the Pacific Ocean’s decadal oscillation, he has staked his reputation on his theory that we are now entering a period of Global Cooling, and the Warming advocates will soon see their arguments collapse.

Whether or not he turns out to be correct will be largely irrelevant for the next four years. President Barack Obama’s cabinet selections clearly indicate the he accepts the idea of human caused Global Warming absolutely, and intends to write policy with that in mind. In his January 2009 Monthly Review, Richard Loomis of World Energy gives a thorough analysis of “President. Obama’s Energy Picks.”

As. Mr. Loomis explains, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees Global Warming as a national security threat and, during her campaign, advocated for strong carbon cutting measures. Steven Chu, as Secretary of Energy, has expressed great distaste for oil, dislikes nuclear power for the waste it generates, and refers to coal as, “my worst nightmare.” Solar, wind, and natural gas power and natural gas fuel seem to be his preferences. Carol Browner, the “Energy Czar,” comes to us from the EPA, where she argued that California should be granted a waiver from the Clean Air Act to allow it to more strictly regulate carbon emissions. Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, pushed a moratorium on new coal plants as the EPA head for New Jersey. Then there is Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior who, while not joining the rest in his hatred of coal, is strongly opposed to expanding oil drilling whether on land or off shore.

From this list, Mr. Loomis is correct to fear some sort of cap and trade mechanism being forced on the U.S. by executive order. And herein lies the real danger of Global Warming. In his January 24th broadcast of “the Big Picture,” Jim Puplava warns that the U.S. will have a difficult time convincing the rest of the world to join in such an initiative during this economic crisis. Europe especially will be disinclined to rely more on natural gas when Putin has consistently demonstrated his willingness to use the gas supply as political leverage. Thus, the U.S. will be forced to pursue carbon reduction policy alone. The high energy costs of such a policy would put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to Europe, China, and our other major trading partners. This is especially worrisome at a time when tax revenues are declining and government spending is increasing, and Mr. Puplava is right to wonder how much more of our debt the world will continue to finance when other nations are beset with their own economic problems.

Then there is peak oil. The recent IEA World Energy Outlook reports a 9.1% annual depletion rate in the world’s oil reserves. All major oil fields are in decline, virtually no new discoveries are being made, and oil demand continues to rise across the world—despite the economic crisis—especially in China, India, and oil producing nations developing their own economies. We are set for an oil supply crisis to hit between 2012-2015. Our own oil reserves are not sufficient to avert this problem, but they can help buy more time for us. However, as developing an oil field takes anywhere from 4-6 years, we would need to start investing today. Instead, low oil prices, and the refusal of the Obama administration to expand drilling while it considers actually raising taxes on oil produces has all but killed capital investment in this vital field.
Natural gas fuel is also a viable stop gap measure while we search for something to more permanently replace oil. However, it is not unlimited, and if we insist on squandering it to supply our electricity, it will not be of much help to us when we face the coming oil supply crisis.

As I have said before, Global Warming is something science is still vigorously debating as it attempts to fully understand the causes of climate change. However, to the Obama administration, the debate is over. In the midst of an economic crisis, it is willing to tax coal and nuclear power into extinction—despite an already overburdened grid. It is willing to put our nation’s entire economy in peril of the worst oil supply crisis ever seen and squander the natural gas resources that could help protect us. And it is willing to do all of this solely on the basis of its faith in human caused Global Warming. Whether climate change is a real problem caused by humans is still up for debate. However, the dangers of policy change based on that premise are very real and imminent.

The Rise of Gold and Fall of The Dollar

2009-01-27T09:00:00.003-07:00

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

Honorable friends:

Last month I wrote that the bailout total, which has now reached more than $8.5 trillion, with another $850 billion stimulus to come this year, will eventually force us into dangerous levels of inflation. I thank the Bangor Daily News and Bridget Johnson at The Rocky Mountain News for picking up on that post. Since then, although the Fed printing presses have been running at a frantic pace, nearly doubling the money base, much of it has not yet reached the money supply. That is about to change.

As the credit crisis hit and companies began to deleverage in earnest, selling anything they could to obtain dollars and pay down debt, U.S. treasury bonds sold very well. Our people, seeing the credit crunch and falling prices, began to fear a deflationary trend and flocked to treasury bonds as well. Truly markets are psychologically driven—and often insane. More rational heads have reminded us that real deflation requires a contraction in the money supply—which the Fed’s printing has made all but impossible. It seems, however, that reason is beginning to reassert itself.

U.S. treasuries are now selling at almost zero percent interest rates. As a result, $1 million invested into a one month treasury bill, rolled over each month, will earn you only a meager $100 annual interest. A one year treasury bill for $1 million will earn you only $4,300. No one can live off such pathetic returns, certainly not our retirees. As for other governments, such returns offer little incentive to continue financing our debt, which increasingly looks to be utterly unmanageable. As a result U.S. Treasury sales are beginning to decline.

As the Ludwig von Mises Institute points out, our biggest creditor nations are unlikely to increase their investment. Japan has been a net seller of U.S. Treasuries and it has its own problems to deal with from demand destruction affecting its exports. OPEC nations are suffering from falling oil prices and their own resulting economic woes render them unable to finance more of our debt. The Caribbean banks are suffering from the credit crunch forcing liquidity and in no position to offer help. That leaves China, which is passing its own $585 billion stimulus, of which the government is providing only $170 billion, leaving the rest to be financed out of its foreign exchange reserves—such as U.S. treasuries.

To further complicate the matter, Chuck Butler’s Daily Pfenning yesterday picked up on news that Chinese officials are now contemplating selling U.S. Treasuries in part out of retaliation that the U.S. government has cast blame on China for the global financial crisis. Yu Yongding, a former member of the People's Bank of China's policy board, also warned that “supply of Treasuries may far exceed demand in the future.”

Thus, as the Fed finds itself unable to sell sufficient treasury bonds to finance all the government spending, it will have no choice but to begin quantitative easing, a polite term for printing money and injecting it directly into the money supply. In other words: massive inflation.

As part of their efforts to accomplish this enormous monetary expansion and devaluation in a vain effort to stimulate the economy, the Ludwig von Mises Institute points out that the central banks have finally abandoned their attempts to artificially suppress the price of gold through naked short selling and dumping. Slapstick Politics discussed this inevitability back in October.

As I predicted last month, the result of all of this has been a drop in the value of the dollar and a precipitous rise in the price of gold as people try to find a way to preserve their wealth. The other major fiat currencies of the world are no better, as James Turk of Gold Money illustrates. The central banks of the world have all embarked on this strategy of bailouts and spending together, and they are all devaluing their currencies together. That trend is likely to continue for some time, and gold remains the best protection against it.

For those of you who still have yet to purchase gold and are cringing at its current price surge to around $900 per ounce, there are some hopeful signs to watch for. Although I do not think the bailouts and stimulus packages will be at all effective at solving the financial crisis in the long run (a topic Slapstick Politics will continue to address), I do expect them to produce a short term boost in confidence in the near future. The strange aura of hope that the Obama administration has coming into office will assist this as well. There may also be another period of deleveraging in the near future. In either scenario, several investment specialists speculate that the price of gold could plummet back down to $650-700 per ounce. If that happens, it would be a wonderful time to purchase. Before the central banks have completed their efforts at quantitative easing, most gold investment experts are estimating the price of gold could rise to anywhere from $1,500-5,000 per ounce. The Ludwig von Mises Institute goes quite a bit further, speculating that gold could climb to almost $10,000 per ounce. While I tend to lean toward the more conservative estimates, gold continues to provide the best possible protection against the inflation and devaluation the central banks of the world are now foisting upon us in what is perhaps the greatest theft of wealth in history.

Barack Obama’s Fashion Faux Pas: Whatever It Was, It Was Not White Tie

2009-01-20T23:05:00.002-07:00

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

Honorable friends:

The magical aura of change and hope that seemed to bewitch the nation today was not quite strong enough to ensorcell Wall Street, which continued its consistent, if volatile, fear driven trend downward. But today, I am told, is not about policy or economics; rather it is about fun and fashion. Fair enough. It is rare that I get to talk about etiquette in politics, so I will take advantage of the opportunity. Besides, while I am sure that virtually all fashion editors will be critiquing Michelle Obama’s evening gown, however lovely the rest of us may think it, and ignoring her husband entirely, someone needs to say something about that ghastly conglomeration Barack Obama tried to pass off as white tie attire.

I suppose I need to give him credit for at least attempting white tie, which is the strictest type of formal evening wear, and something few of our overly casual citizenry, including presidents, even try anymore. Because of that unfamiliarity though, few will ever realize how badly he botched his effort and wound up looking more like an inexperienced prom king than a president, an appearance only reinforced by his pathetic attempts at dancing. One would think America’s first couple could be bothered to learn at least a simple waltz before the inaugural balls. Nonetheless, for those gentlemen who perhaps aspire to wear white tie correctly one day, allow me to point out our new President’s faux pas.

White tie, properly speaking, involves a plain fronted, stiff white shirt with French cuffs and a wing-tip collar. Mr. Obama’s collar was full, quite improper for the occasion. The coat for white tie must be black, have tails, and satin peak or shawl lapels. Mr. Obama’s jacket lacked tails entirely, and notched lapels, while barely passable for black tie, are far too similar to the daily business suit to ever be appropriate for the ultra formal white tie style. The pants for white tie must be black with a braid down the sides. Mr. Obama’s trousers had only a satin stripe. Naturally, white tie also requires a white piqué waistcoat and bow tie, and gold and or mother of pearl cuff links and button studs. The President got that much right at least.

In contrast, the less formal black tie tuxedo, used for private entertaining such as weddings rather than public occasions and balls, consists of a white shirt with a pleated front, French cuffs and full fold-down collar. The jacket should not have tails and may have shawl, peak, or notch satin lapels. In the summer, the jacket—and only the jacket—may be white. That is as exciting as is permissible. The black pants must have a satin stripe down the sides. As the name suggests, it requires a black bow tie with a black waistcoat or cummerbund with black and silver cuff links and button studs. Colors are never permitted, no matter what a gentleman’s date is wearing, unless he wishes to look like an organ grinder.

Both white and black tie have daytime equivalents as well. However, I won’t complicate things further with those. It suffices to say that the president managed only a bizarre and awkward amalgamation of the two styles, though I am glad he did not go so far as to include colors or the tacky variation of ties cheap haberdashers so carelessly foist upon us these days. I have only one further suggestion for the well groomed man: visit a barber or stylist before putting on formal evening wear. Sideburns should either be present on both sides of the head or not at all.

If today really was about fun and fashion, and if Wall Street was paying attention, perhaps it explains the decline. How can a gentleman be expected to manage the nation’s economy if he cannot even manage to properly dress himself?

Sen. Inhofe Asks the People to Help Fight Second TARP Bailout

2009-01-15T12:26:00.001-07:00

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

Honorable friends:

From what I have been reading, I doubt there are many people left in this nation, outside the District of Columbia, who still believe that the TARP bailout was a good idea. Despite this, only a few members of the Senate have shown courage in representing the people against this horrendous and immoral plundering of our country’s wealth. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), along with Senators Barasso (R-Wyo.), Wicker (R-Miss.), DeMint (R-S.C.), Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Enzi (R-Wyo.), have cosponsored legislation that would halt the second installment of the $350 billion bailout.

They face tough opposition, however. Obama, backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid, has demanded that Congress release the money to the incoming administration. Obama has threatened to veto any attempt Congress makes to withhold the money.

The U.S. Senate is due to vote on the issue this afternoon. Many people have told me that they feel helpless to prevent what seems to them to be inevitable. It is not. Sen. Inhofe and his allies are committed to fight it, but Inhofe has asked for the help of the people. All it takes is a few moments to find your senator’s web page, type a quick objection to the bailout, and e-mail the message. The Senate needs our help to stand up against this pressure, but it can be done.

Already, CNN reports that Republican senators, anticipating that Obama will get the money, are asking his administration to promise that he will only use it on the financial industry, and not alter the purpose—for the auto industry for instance—as the Bush administration did. There was a time when such a request would have been silly. The Constitution, after all, prevents a president from altering legislation to his whim—he is charged merely with enforcing it. Yet, today, Congress must beg the president to even follow the laws they pass. As Sen. Inhofe has stated before, and I have echoed, our Republic is in dire straits.

If we are unhappy with this state of affairs, then it is up to us, the people, to correct the government which should be answerable to us. It is our responsibility to defend the Constitution and to make our will known to the spineless and feckless fools currently sitting in Congress that we do not want more money to go to these bailouts. It is not hard, and requires only a few moments, and a few clicks of the mouse. I hope you will all join me in answering Sen. Inhofe’s call to contact our senators, and to send them all but one powerful word: “NO!”

Just War: Why Christians Should Not Falter in Support of Israel

2009-01-14T08:30:00.000-07:00

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

Honorable friends:

The Holy See permanent observer to the United Nations has quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying of the conflict in Gaza “that the military options are no solution and that violence, wherever it comes from and whatever form it takes, must be firmly condemned.” Naturally, I would expect the pontiff to be praying for peace. However, I am surprised that the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would make such a careless comment so wildly out of line with the Church’s teachings. Such slips only encourage the type of behavior I saw this weekend from a few guests at a wedding who, though totally uneducated on the subject, pronounced their condemnation of both Israel and Palestine while piously declaring that war is always wrong. Such statements are as contemptible as they are intellectually lazy, and I grow weary of listening to them.

While Christianity has perhaps lamented that war is always tragic and unfortunate, it has never declared that war is always wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single mainstream Christian Church so foolish as to make such a declaration. Certainly, Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be called wrong by any rational observer. To fully understand how incredibly imbalanced the ethics of this conflict are in favor of Israel, there is no better teacher than Charles Krauthammer in his last two columns, “Excruciating Moral Clarity,” and, “Ending Hamas Rule.”

However, for those of you who, like me, have an assortment of Christian friends who refuse to sanction any war no matter how powerful the justification or how clear the moral reasoning, I suggest you refer them to the Christian Just War Doctrine. Going all the way back to Saint Augustine of Hippo, it predates all the schisms and is a part of every mainstream form of Christianity.

The Just War Doctrine, codified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, states in §2308 that, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” Section 2309 goes on to list the conditions under which a just war may be prosecuted:
· the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
· all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
· there must be serious prospects of success;
· the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Considering what we know of Gaza, despite all international effort over the past several decades, no authority has been successful at persuading the Palestinian militants to desist from launching rockets into Israel. As Mr. Krauthammer points out, rocket fire on the Israeli population has continued unabated even after Israel withdrew all settlers and military, and ceded governmental control to the Palestinian Authority in 2005—effectively doing everything the Palestinians had demanded for an end to hostilities. Negotiations have gone on for decades, yet only Israel attempts to abide by any of the agreements reached. There is nothing more Israel can offer save its own annihilation. Thus, I would say negotiation has proved most ineffective.

Israel does have a good chance of permanently ending this conflict, though, if its assault can topple Hamas’ control and demonstrate that Islamic militants will succeed only in bringing greater hardship down on Palestinian people. The hardship endured by the Palestinian people is indeed unfortunate, but Hamas has deliberately orchestrated that hardship by using its own civilian population and humanitarian centers as shields against Israeli counterstrikes. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) acknowledges that the problem of proportionality is “aggravated if one side deliberately positions military targets in the midst of a civilian population.” Though Israel is doing all it can to minimize civilian casualties, they are inevitable. Nonetheless, after so many decades of failed negotiations, if Israel can succeed in destroying Hamas utterly, the permanent peace to follow will be worth the terrible price.

As the Catechism states in §2304, the peace Israel fights for is “not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is ‘the tranquility of order.’ Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.” According to Pope John Paul II in his World Day of Peace Message of 1982, “Unconditional and effective respect for each one's unprescriptable and inalienable rights is the necessary condition in order that peace may reign in a society.” Currently, only Israel offers such respect—going so far as to offer warnings and aid to enemy noncombatants in its quest for peace. Hamas, on the other hand, is dedicated to the complete destruction of Israel. Unless it is clearly defeated, that ideology of hate will remain as an impenetrable barrier to peace for yet more decades to come.

As the USCCB states, “This is why Christians, even as they strive to resist and prevent every form of warfare, have no hesitation in recalling that, in the name of an elementary requirement of justice, peoples have a right and even a duty to protect their existence and freedom by proportionate means against an unjust aggressor.”

Rather than making foolish statements about how all war is evil, if Christendom truly wants to see an end to conflict in the Middle East, they would do well to bring real pressure to bear on Hamas, Palestine, and their Arab allies to prevent the continual flow of weapons and armaments into Gaza, and to enforce real consequences for mortar attacks beyond occasional dispatching another diplomat for talks while the militants rearm. The USCCB reminds us that a true “Christian has no choice but to defend peace, properly understood, against aggression. This is an inalienable obligation.”

Berg v. Obama Denied Certiorari

2009-01-13T23:59:00.003-07:00

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

(For earlier posts on this case click here.)

Honorable Friends:

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Berg v. Obama. Despite this denial, there is still a chance it may be heard by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where it is still pending. Berg reports that his brief is due by 20 January 2009. Ironically, that is inauguration day. Though it saddens me to say so, as this case will not even be heard, much less resolved, by the time Obama is sworn into office, I cannot imagine any court would presume to review the qualifications of a sitting president. Thus, I do not expect that there will be any further developments in this case. As such, the question of Obama’s constitutional qualifications falls to the U.S. Senate. The Senate has accepted Obama as fully qualified for office, and he will thus become the next President of the United States on January 20th.

Begin the New Year with a Laugh: We Can All Cry Soon Enough

2009-01-05T16:06:00.001-07:00

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

Honorable Friends:

Happy Twelfth Night! This is the last day of Christmas. Tomorrow is the Epiphany and, as the Magi commence their visit, the holidays will sadly draw to a close. Before I get back to commenting on the New Year, though, which is quickly filling up with many mad events (El Presidente has already pounced on the insane appointment of Sen. Who), I thought I would share a few light hearted reflections on 2008.

This first video comes from Jib Jab. Their annual, “Year in Review” series of videos never fails to entertain, and the “2008 Year in Review,” is no exception.

The second video recap of 2008 comes from “Uncle Jay Explains the News.” Uncle Jay seems to be quite an entertaining and sensible fellow, and his other news briefings are worth a glance or two as well.

I hope you enjoy the levity. Tomorrow the Dunraven will be back to his usual raucous squawking.

How Bernanke Stole Christmas

2008-12-19T09:00:00.001-07:00

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A. (With Apologies to Dr. Seuss)
December 2008

Every Who Down in Who-ville Liked Christmas a lot
But Bernanke, who lived just north of Who-ville, thought it might be for naught.

Bernanke feared for Christmas, and the whole shopping season.
Now, please don’t ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be that interest rates weren’t adjusted just right.
It could be, perhaps, that banks were leveraged too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all,
May have been that his brain was under Keynesian thrall.

But whichever of these reasons you may choose,
He stood there on Christmas Eve, fretting for Whos,
Staring down from the Fed with a sour, Bernanke frown,
At the warm lighted windows below in their town.
For he knew every Who down in Who-ville beneath,
Was busy now, hanging a mistletoe wreath.

“And they’re hanging their stockings! He snarled with a sneer,
“Tomorrow is Christmas! It’s practically here!”
Then he growled, with his Fed fingers nervously drumming,
“I MUST find some way to keep Christmas cash coming!”

For tomorrow, he knew, all the Who girls and boys,
Would wake bright and early and rush for their toys!
And finding none there—Oh the Noise! Noise! Noise! Noise!
That’s one thing he hated! The Noise! Noise! Noise! Noise!

Then the Whos, young and old, would expect a great feast.
And they’d feast! And they’d feast!
And they’d feast! Feast! Feast! Feast!
But this year there would be no Who-pudding, and no rare Who-roast beast.
Which was a thought poor Bernanke couldn’t stand in the least!

And then they’d do something he liked least of all!
Every Who down in Who-ville, the tall and the small,
Would stand close together, with Christmas bells tinkling
They’d stand hand-in-hand. And the Whos would start thinking.

They’d march and they’d protest!
And they’d chant! Chant! Chant! Chant!
And the more Bernanke thought of this Who Christmas Chanting
The more Bernanke thought, “I must stop this Who ranting!
“Why for 45 years we’ve made fiat work now!
I Must keep Christmas cash flowing!
. . . But how?

Then he got an idea!
An awful idea!
Bernanke
Got a wonderful, awful idea!

“I know just what to do!” Bernanke laughed in his throat.
And he made a quick Santy Claus hat and a coat.
And he chuckled, and clucked, “What a great Fed-ish trick!
“With this coat and this hat, I’ll look just like Saint Nick!”

“All I need is a reindeer . . .”
Bernanke looked around.
But since reindeer are scarce, there was none to be found.
Did that stop old Ben?
No! Bernanke simply said,
“If I can’t find a reindeer, I’ll make one instead!”
So he called his friend Hank. Then he took some red thread
And he tied a big horn on top of his head.

Then he fired up the printing presses.
He had lots of money to make,
Loaded the sleigh with excesses
And he hitched up old Hank.

Then Bernanke said, “Giddyap!”
And the sleigh started down
Toward the homes where the Whos
Lay a-snooze in their town.

All their windows were dark. Quiet snow filled the air.
The Whos were all dreaming sweet dreams without care
When he came to the first failing bank in the square.
“This is stop number one,” The old Bernanke Claus hissed
And he climbed to the roof, bloated bags in his fist.

Then he slid down the chimney. It looked rather grimy.
But if Santa could do it, then so could Bernanke.
He got stuck only once, for a moment or two.
Then he stuck his head out of the fireplace flue
Where bad mortgage backed debt all sat in a row.
“These derivatives,” he grinned, “are the first things to go!”

Then he slithered and slunk, with a smile most like a snake,
Around the whole town, and financed each big bank’s mistakes.
Fannie and Freddie, Bear Sterns, and Citi
TARP, AIG, GE and more Citi.
To bad business he gave billions, oh very nimbly,
But as for good business, they didn’t get any.

To get the money flowing he was bound to inflate,
So he even brought treasuries down to negative interest rates.
Printing money by trillions he nearly doubled the cash.
Just think of Zimbabwe; it wouldn’t be rash.

Then he stuffed all the money down the chimneys with gusto
“And NOW!” grinned Bernanke, “I’ll fix up the Autos.”

And then Bernanke flew to Detroit, with more money to drop
When he heard a small sound say “The Senate said ‘Stop.’”
He turned around fast, and he saw to his gall
Congressman Ron Paul, who was ready to brawl.

Bernanke had been caught by this noble Who master
Who’d got out of bed to see what was the clatter.
He stared at Bernanke and said, “Santy Claus, why,
“Why are you devaluing our dollar and savings? Why?”

But, you know that Bernanke was so smart and so slick
He thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick!
“Inflation’s not bad,” the fake Santy Claus lied,
“It’s just that this level has never been tried.
“So I’ll inflate until we can create a new bubble.
“Then our economy will be back to boom on the double.”

But his fib fooled no one. Then he grabbed Paul by the head
And he trussed him and gagged him and tossed him back in bed.
And when Paul was disposed of, with his Constitution too,
He turned back to Detroit and forced the money through.

But inflation burned through the Whos’ savings like fire.
They were poorer, not richer, as he left, the old liar.
Working longer and harder before they could retire.

And the only speck of money
Left to the average Who house
Were accounts that were even too small to buy food for a mouse.

Then the same thing befell all the Whos’ houses
Leaving accounts much too small to feed the other Whos’ mouses.

It was a quarter past dawn . . .
All the Whos, still a-bed
All the Whos, still a-snooze
When he packed up his sled,
Packed it up with their final stimulus package! The checks! All indebting!
For the poor! And the Middle Class! For Change! What trappings!

80 trillion feet up! Up the side of Mount Debt-it,
He rode to overlook Who-ville, on their heads to dump it.
“Hal-loo to the Whos!” he was Fed-ishly humming.
“They’re finding out now that Christmas cash is coming!
“They’re just waking up! I know just what they’ll do!
“Their mouth will hang open a minute or two
“Then all the Whos down in Who-vill will all cry YOO-HOO!”

“That’s a noise,” grinned Bernanke,
“That I simply must hear!”
So he paused. And Bernanke put a hand to his ear.
And he did hear a sound rising over the snow.
It started in low. Then it started to grow . . .

But the sound wasn’t happy!
Why, this sound sounded angry!
It couldn’t be so!
But it WAS angry, VERY!

He stared down at Who-ville!
Bernanke popped his eyes!
Then he shook!
What he saw was a shocking surprise!

Every Who down in Who-ville, through distortions great and small,
Was chanting! Not one had any presents at all!
He HADN’T kept Christmas cash flowing!
IT FROZE
Somehow or other, it froze, though how, he did not know.

And Bernanke, with his Fed-feet ice-cold in the snow,
Stood puzzling and puzzling: “How could it be so?
“It froze despite nationalizing! It froze despite rate cutting!
“It froze despite bailouts, quantitative easing, and printing!”
And he puzzled for hours, ‘till his puzzler was sore.
Then Bernanke thought of something he hadn’t before!
“Maybe our economy,” he thought, “doesn’t come from just a store.
“Maybe the economy . . . perhaps . . . means a little bit more!”

And what happened then?
Well, in Who-ville they say
That Bernanke read von Misses and Hayek that day!
And the minute he saw true capitalism’s light,
He whizzed back to town to set all to right.
He stopped all the bailouts and ended fiat money!
And he, he himself, Bernanke, restored a land of milk and honey.

Bush Blasted for Usurping Congress on Auto Bailout: Sen. Inhofe Defends the Republic as a Modern Cicero

2008-12-13T12:29:00.003-07:00

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

Honorable Friends:

Heeding the overwhelming will of the people-- and perhaps at last developing a bit of good sense-- the U.S. Senate has rejected the idea of a bailout for the Detroit automakers. If we were still following that dusty old parchment called the U.S. Constitution, the matter would have ended there, at least until the next president takes office. As we have been ignoring the Constitution for a while though, the story continues.

President Bush declared that the Senate, far from rejecting the bailout, simply failed to act. On that flimsy pretext, he will use $15 billion of the $700 billion bank bailout to aid Chrysler, GM, and Ford. Although Congress authorized that money only for the financial services industry, there has been no oversight, and the Bush administration has already altered the implementation of the bailout several times without consequence. Thus, despite the fact that such actions completely usurp the Legislative branch and represent a total betrayal of our Constitution, the Bush administration is proceeding without hesitation.

At least one of our senators, though, is refusing to retreat quietly into irrelevancy. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), one of the most staunchly conservative members of the Senate, is fighting back on behalf of our republic and the Constitution. Like a modern day Cicero, he issued a philippic against Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Bush administration declaring:

"As the Bush administration changes course once again, it is becoming clear to me that Washington, D.C. might be completely out of control.

"How have we come to a point that Congress--the institution that represents the will of the American people--has handed over so much money and authority to the Treasury Secretary that, if the democratic process fails to achieve a certain desired outcome, the outcome is simply ignored? The stated purpose of $700 billion bank bailout was to rescue us from a catastrophic breakdown of the financial system. Now we're told that the money might be used to bailout the auto companies because legislating their multi-billion dollar gift from the U.S. taxpayer might come with conditions that were too inconvenient for interested parties. I've been a U.S. Senator for some time, and I have never seen anything like this.”

Sen. Inhofe is correct. Congress has been lax in its duties and handed over far too much authority to the executive branch, which is now running roughshod over our republic and tearing the Constitution to shreds, while claiming that it is all justified because we face an emergency situation. Yet, that sort of justification is precisely what our Constitution and its processes were created to guard against in the first place.

It has gone on too long. When we suffered a terrorist attack and faced two wars, Congress handed the President unprecedented powers, both domestically and militarily, which the Supreme Court is still trying to cut back to constitutional levels. Congress sat by while the President made use of torture, suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, spied on our own people without warrants, and otherwise made a mockery of our Bill of Rights—because it was an emergency. When the financial crisis hit, Congress again handed the president such sweeping power over our financial system that the U.S. government overnight gained more control over private industry than is exercised by the socialist government of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Our money printing has ballooned to a level not seen in the world since the French Revolution—increasing the money base almost 80%--over 40% in the last month alone. Now, the President even presumes to ignore express will of the first branch of government entirely—because it is an emergency.

Our republic is in grave danger. Though I may disagree with Sen. Inhofe occasionally on social issues, I cannot deny that he has both integrity and honor. Already, he has had my respect through the financial crisis because of his determined and reasoned opposition to the woefully irresponsible and ill planned bailouts. Now, though perhaps already too late, he is trying to defend the Constitutional process that defines this nation. For that he has my utmost admiration. I only hope he has more success than Cicero himself, and that his colleagues, and we the people, have enough courage and conviction to join and support him in his opposition to this madness which, as he states, “will not only be futile, but will also move this country further from those first principles that have made us the great nation we are today."

S·P·Q·A
Senatus Populusque Americanus
For The Senate and People of America

More Than 650 Scientists Dissent over UN Global Warming Report

2008-12-13T09:36:00.001-07:00

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

Honorable Friends,

Whenever any religion seeks to turn dogma into law, society should be wary. Inevitably, when dogma becomes law, liberty, reason, and true scientific inquiry all suffer. It is not hard to find examples. Just look at the disasters which befell the Catholic Church with Copernicus and Galileo. The Catholic Church learned its lesson though. It has since formed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to ensure that the Church is never again on the wrong side of the facts. The academy is more interested in truth than in dogma, and thus does not require its members to be Catholic. As a result, its membership roster includes some of the greatest minds of our time, such as Nobel laureate Dr. Steven Hawking, a man who believes more in mathematics than in the common conception of a creator being.

Contrast this with the nations under the sway of Islam. There, any scientific finding that does not fit with the Muslim dogma is either discarded or, worse, condemned. It is a common complaint among the expatriates of Islamic nations that, in order to conduct decent scientific research, they must first leave their native countries. To these people, the West has been a safe haven. However, when it comes to the issue of global warming, the West has its own problems.

In 2003, Michael Crichton famously criticized environmentalism as shifting from genuine scientific concern into the religious preference of urban atheists. In 2005, he continued his criticism of the zealous absolute faith our people seem to place in the idea of global warming, despite a great deal of uncertainty in the data. Certainly, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) displayed a dogmatic commitment to global warming worthy of any Islamic nation when it issued its recent report on climate change in June of 2008. It claimed to represent a consensus of scientific thought and pronounced that the debate over global warming had ended. They should have said that the debate over global warming would no longer be tolerated.

It seems someone forgot to inform the bureaucrats and politicians who assembled the IPCC report that “consensus” and “compromise” are words from the world of politics which have no place in the world of science. While useful for crafting policy, incontrovertible facts do not compromise no matter how much political pressure they may be under or how many people dislike them. Yet, since the publication of the report, we have learned that it was indeed policy—not proofs—which the UN and IPCC were expressing. Any study which did not confirm or support the conclusion that Global Warming was a real problem caused by human action was systematically excluded from the report. It is fiat science.

Fortunately, the Republican minority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), has sought to correct this egregious misrepresentation of scientific fact. The Committee’s Minority Report cites over 650 scientists who dispute the claims made in the IPCC report, which was authored by a mere 52 scientists. Among its 231 pages, you will find links to peer reviewed studies which claim that the sun’s increasing activity may be responsible for the warming we have recorded on earth, along with many other theories that did not fit into the agenda of the global warming advocates at the U.N..

The studies cited should make it abundantly clear that the debate over global warming is far from finished. The topic of climate change is still filled with a great deal of uncertainty and deserves far more study before we commit to climate policies which could damage both our liberty and economy without giving any guarantee of helping our environment. In the meantime, we should be wary of what to believe on faith alone. Though waiting on the scientific method may be tedious, history shows us the disastrous consequences of putting our faith in the wrong place. The modern Islamic world gives us a very good picture of what dogmatic science can do to a society. More to the point, though, if we cannot trust our own government to manage even basic fiscal policy responsibly, why should we trust an organization of many governments to issue scientific findings by political decree on something as complex and uncertain as the climate? I should think the current financial crisis would be more than enough reason to keep them away from anything more complex than acknowledging that the sky is, indeed, blue.

The Bailout Total: $8.5 trillion-- Inflation To Come

2008-12-10T09:00:00.005-07:00

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

Honorable Friends:

In prior posts, I have made my disdain for the economic bailouts abundantly clear. Thus, I have not been at all surprised that the bailouts have failed so miserably to solve the financial crisis over these past several weeks of extreme volatility. What has surprised me a bit is the amount of money the government is willing to gamble in a desperate attempt to force the bailouts to work.

“Helicopter” Ben Bernanke, earned his moniker by once promising to drop helicopter loads of money on to a financial crisis if needed. This was the lesson he gleaned from years spent studying the Great Depression of the 1930s. Mr. Bernanke determined that had we simply thrown enough money at it, we could have ended the Great Depression much earlier. The Austrian School would say that he is exactly wrong, but he is now putting his theory to the test in our current financial crisis. As the helicopters continue to swarm, I think it only prudent that we occasionally glance at how much we are spending to test his theory. Jim Puplava, investment advisor and CEO of Puplava Financial Services, Inc., has provided a quick accounting of the helicopter drops and so far:

· For commercial paper, we have allocated $1.8 trillion;
· The Term Auction Facility, which provides negotiated rate for banks to borrow from the FED, has allocated $900 billion;
· Other assets have $606 billion;
· Finance company debt purchases, like the Fannie and Freddie bailouts, have received $600 billion;
· Money Market Facilities have $540 billion;
· The Citigroup bailout cost $291 billion;
· Term Security Lending has $250 billion;
· Term Asset Backed Loan Facilities (TALF), designed to help credit cards and business loans, has $200 billion;
· The bailout for AIG cost us $123 billion;
· Discount Window Borrowings has been allocated $92 billion;
· Commercial Program Number 2, which helps banks buy commercial paper from mutual funds, received $62 billion;
· Discount Window Number 2 has $50 billion;
· The Bear Stearns bailout cost $29 billion;
· Overnight loans have received $10 billion;
· Secondary credit is at $118 billion;
· Federal Deposit Insurance Commitments (FDIC) which guarantees loans, has received $1.4 trillion;
· Guarantees on GE Capital are at $139 billion;
· Citigroup’s second bailout took another $10 billion infusion;
· The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) we heard so much about has $700 billion;
· The earlier stimulus package this year cost $168 billion;
· Treasury Exchange Stabilization Fund took $50 billion;
· Tax breaks for banks are at $29 billion;
· And Hope for Homeowners devoured $300 billion

Thus, the total amount we are spending on the bailout so far is $8.5 trillion.

Early next year, we can look forward to another $700 billion bailout directly to the people (which will include even those who do not pay taxes) as promised by Obama and Pelosi. There will also be some form of bailout to the Detroit automakers, and the bailout for the various states is still to come as California has already begun to issue IOUs. For more detailed information, check out Mr. Puplava’s Financial Sense Newshour, “The Big Picture” for December 6, 2008.

Currently, our GDP is only $10-13 trillion depending on how generously you want to calculate it. Either way, spending 60-80% of our GDP on bailouts should outrage you. So where is this unimaginably vast amount of money coming from? As I have said before, we are simply printing most of it. As you might imagine, such frantic money printing should massively increase inflation. Just examine the money base chart below.

This massive increase has not yet hit the money supply (See chart of M2 below) as the banks are busy trying to recapitalize and deleverage rather than giving out new loans. We used to call that prudent, but prudence is not what our government wants right now. Many of the above programs have been created to allow the government to bypass the banks, injecting cash directly into the economy in an attempt to spur spending, create new bubbles, and stagger along to the next distortion created crash. If it doesn’t work, we can look forward to a large devaluation of the dollar.

This impending inflation and devaluation should explain why investors like Warren Buffett have totally divested themselves of the dollar. Yet, even faced with this evidence, people are still flocking to treasury bonds despite the abysmally low or even negative returns on them right now. A wiser investor would seek stocks of companies which consistently pay dividends, have increased their dividends, and are likely to continue doing so. The precious metals also continue to look appealing as a hedge against the inflation our inept government is trying to ram down our throats.

With the election behind us, countering the political forces pushing the bailout—and the resulting inflation—has become much more difficult, but remains vitally important. Making our own displeasure with these bailouts known and holding politicians accountable for their actions are the only defenses we have against the continued financial mismanagement coming from our government.

Interior Permits Guns in the National Parks

2008-12-05T19:59:00.001-07:00

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

Honorable Friends:

In its waning days, the Bush administration has at last given us something to celebrate. And no, I am not simply referring to its imminent departure. Today, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Lyle Laverty, announced new regulations recognizing an individual’s right to bear arms in the national parks and wildlife refuges.

According to the announcement, the new rule, “would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located.” Congratulations Coloradans; all you need to do to carry a concealed handgun in the national parks here is to obtain a concealed carry permit recognized in Colorado. Just don’t try it in states which refuse to recognize our permits—such as the entire Left Coast.

This is a rather major development. Previously, possession of a loaded firearm in a national park or wildlife refuge was strictly forbidden by law since 1983. The former regulations demanded that any firearm be kept unloaded, in a locked case, in some inaccessible part of your vehicle, such as the trunk, in order to enter a national park with it at all.

The new changes came about as Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne responded to letters from 51 Senators (Letter 1 / Letter 2) of both parties who pointed out that 48 states now have concealed carry laws and our federal regulations should be updated to reflect that change. Occasionally, even Senators do manage to say something sensible, and it seems Secretary Kempthone agreed.

Naturally, this change in the rules did not come without substantial opposition and, in the published rule, the Department of Interior took the opportunity to respond to many of the concerns raised during the lengthy 90 day comment period. For instance, environmentalists will be pleased to know that most studies conclude that the vast majority of concealed weapons permit holders are not, in fact, poachers. Rather, they tend to carry their weapons for purposes of self defense, and are well aware that any improper use of a firearm is still a punishable offense. The Interior goes on to admit that violent crime is on the rise in national parks, especially near the border and in remote areas, with 8 murders, 43 rapes, 57 robberies, and 274 instances of aggravated assault in 2007. The Department also warns that the mere 3000 officers it has patrolling the millions of remote acres in our national parks cannot possibly guarantee safety. Thus, having a weapon of self defense may not be such a bad idea.

The year 2008 has been good for gun rights and the Second Amendment. First, Justice Scalia gave us the highly entertaining opinion in the District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms, overturning the D.C. handgun ban. Now we have the Interior opening the national parks to concealed carry permit holders. If you are still looking for stocking stuffers, I cannot think of any better way to commemorate this remarkable year than purchasing handgun training courses for you and your loved ones in preparation for the concealed carry permit application. What better way to ensure a ‘safe’ and happy holiday season?

Facebook: Killing Privacy and the English Language

2008-11-28T17:12:00.000-07:00

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

Honorable Friends,

This Thanksgiving, I had the pleasure of running into quite a few old friends I had not heard from in many years. Several complained to me that my email is too difficult to obtain because I was not on Facebook. It seems they did not even think to run a Google search of my name to find this blog and, apparently, it is now an incredible bother to have to ask a single other person for my contact information. Whatever. In response, I set up a very spartan Facebook entry, complete with an acerbic warning that I will only respond to emails, and will not tolerate any wretched page postings. In only a few days, though, it has been a horrifying experience.

Facebook is ghastly. I cannot believe how invasive it becomes. Did anyone else read the privacy policy? Horrid. It has taken far too long for me to slice off most of the more grasping tentacles, but I think I am content for a while now that my wall is forever fortified and my friend list is blinded. Good gods, though, I am being contacted by people I don't even know in person yet. Do they think this nonsense builds anything resembling a true relationship? They should not have access to all this information people put out there so blithely. It is dangerous! With almost no difficulty, I can chart a person's entire week just from the postings of their friends alone. It is a wretched business I say. Simply wretched.

One of my friends, laughing at my discomfort, reminded me that small towns often know everyone else’s business as well. Having come from a small town, though, I can say that small towns guard their privacy jealously. They also look out for one another, and censure the bad behavior of others through ostracism. None of that is present in Facebook. It is a gold mine of information that requires nothing in exchange. It worries me that our people, and especially the younger generations, have become so trusting that they are willing to give open access to their entire lives. Who needs domestic spying warrants when one has only to search through Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, or another such social networking sites? Perhaps more than its obliterating effect on privacy, though, I simply cannot tolerate how insipid it is.

"Oh it's so cool!" they tell me, "Look, I can throw a polar bear at you!" A polar bear, yet I was still in outraged shock over the foul idea of emoticons. Now I have to contend with flying polar bears. Perhaps they figure that if they create enough ridiculous gadgets, they will eliminate the need for any tone or meaning in writing altogether. May the gods save the English language. It is the greatest, most adaptable language in the world, yet our people and our incompetent educators are doing their utmost to mutilate it into the inarticulate grunting of savages.

Do you disagree? Just look at it. There are supposed 'friends' out there who post such scintillating updates as, "I am eating a bag of chips." When you find yourself unable to articulate a reply to these riveting observations, they toss a bloody polar bear at you. I tell you, this is nothing more than a technologically advanced version of an inanely screeching monkey chucking its own poo at its fellows.

No my honorable friends, I'll have none of it. Personal letters are dangerous enough, but at least they have substance. Phone calls are uncertain, but the connection is undeniable. Still, though, I prefer the now all but lost art of social calling: a visit in the parlor or garden over tea and scones while offering genteel conversation which does not simply make noise, but challenges and enlightens. Though the modern world has offered many improvements over my former life in the Victorian Era, Facebook is most assuredly not one of them. It provides a point of contact which can be easily found. That is all the credit I will give it.

Bailouts Continue to Multiply Using Money From Your Accounts

2008-11-11T09:45:00.000-07:00

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

Honorable Friends:

We are now past the election, but I cannot stop thinking of Disney’s Alice in Wonderland and the Dodo’s jolly caucus race. Do you recall the scene? The Dodo perches atop a pillar of rock on a beach, presiding over a crowd of critters running endlessly around his pillar in an attempt to get dry while the tide continues to crash over their heads. The Dodo instructs them that they must all run with the others if they want to get dry, all the while singing his ridiculous song:

'Round and 'round and 'round we go
Until forevermore
For once we were behind
But now we find we are be-

Forward, backward, inward, outward
Come and join the chase
Nothing could be drier
Than a jolly caucus race!

Certainly, everyone has been running together in our own caucus race. Both parties and both presidential candidates decided to run with the bailouts, and the bailouts continue to multiply and grow.

Yesterday morning the AP announced that AIG’s bailout has grown to more than $150 billion. Of this, $40 billion buys preferred stock for public ownership. The original $85 billion loan has been reduced to $60 billion and another $37.8 billion loan has been transformed into a $52.5 billion aid package.

We also have GM and Ford with their hands out for bailout money according to The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Have no doubt that they will get what they seek. They will get a bailout or two despite the fact that other automobile makers are doing just fine. They will get it despite the fact that, as the Institute points out, Ford has fewer employees than Abercrombie and Fitch and GM has far fewer employees than Target, Wal-Mart, or McDonalds, yet these companies would be laughed at if they demanded a bailout.

Goldman Sachs and Fannie and Freddie also are showing losses. Facing a third quarter net loss of over $29 billion, and a total outstanding debt of $880 billion as of October 31^st, Fannie has warned that its $100 billion bailout may not be enough.

So where is all the requested bailout money coming from? Well, $40 billion of AIG’s money is coming from the $850 billion bailout package Congress just passed. The rest is being printed by the Fed. But let us be honest: all the bailout money has been printed. We were running a deficit long before we ever made even the first bailout.

Understand that, by printing money, the government pays for these bailouts by taking value out of the savings accounts of private citizens. As the money supply is increased through inflation, and by printing more than $2 trillion in the last few weeks we have increased the money supply by almost 50%, the money we hold in savings is devalued. Thus, we must all work harder and longer in order to save less. It is a very subtle form of theft, but make no mistake—it is theft. The citizens of this country are all having their accounts raided, through inflation, to pay for the failed policies of these companies.

Now look at who is running things. Michael Alix has been named as senior vice president of the bank supervision group of the New York Fed. Formerly, he was the chief risk officer at Bear Sterns, which went under back in March from its derivative investments. Former officials of Goldman Sachs can be found throughout the Treasury Department and Fed. I suppose if Goldman continues to suffer, its management can always find new employment with government. Don’t you feel safe?

So this is the state of affairs. The whole country is drowning in debt and asking for bailouts. Our government dodos, who happen to be the same fools who got us into such debt in the first place, are now busy pouring even more debt through inflation upon us to facilitate the requested bailouts. But keep running, they say, and eventually you will get dry. Pay no attention to the rising waves.

Honorable friends, we have fallen down the rabbit hole, but isn’t it entertaining?

'Round and 'round and 'round we go
Until forevermore
For once we were behind
But now we find we are . . . still behind

Recovering from the Election and Preparing the Republican Party for the Future

2008-11-06T17:49:00.001-07:00

Recovering from the Election and Preparing the Republican Party for the Future

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

Honorable friends,

This year, as I handed out candy to trick-or-treaters for Samhain/Halloween, I received a terrible cold in exchange. I spent the last few days sniffling and moaning in bed. At some point, I recall watching a somewhat blurry talking head announce that Barack Obama had just won the election. That set off a wave of coughing I thought might kill me. Cursing cold medication induced hallucinations, I promptly poured myself more cough syrup and tried to return to sleep.

The next day, the irritating headlines refused to disappear, even when I refused any medication at all. The morbidly depressed phone calls that began to pour in confirmed that I was not hallucinating, however much I may have wanted to. Stupidity had finally achieved a majority of votes.

I have also heard from the other side, and I am astounded at what they are saying. Consider this email that invaded my inbox this morning:

“As you read the lovely quote below, which speaks volumes, listen to the ‘Yes We Can’ song one more time. Our future is looking brighter everyday and history has been made.
‘It is said that Rosa [Parks] sat so that Martin [Luther King Jr.] could walk. And Martin walked so that Obama could run. And Obama ran so that we could fly. It’s time to take wing.’”

Now, maybe it is because I am ill, but my breakfast was the only thing threatening to take wing after I read that. One had only to see the enraptured expressions of adulation on the faces of the crowd at Obama’s victory speech to know that this woman is not alone in her sentiment, though. They haven’t simply elected a president; a new messiah has risen to save the nation and the world. I, however, will not be among the worshipers of our new god-president.

As a devotee of the Old Religion of Ireland and a student of history, I know of countless examples where a man has claimed power along with semi-divine status. In each case, the new divinity ended up looking just like old-fashioned tyranny. Only once has the title of messiah ever stuck. But in that case, the man who claimed it never seized power or commanded armies. Rather, he presented a simple message of love that rose to preeminence through persuasion—not state power. To my knowledge, many Christians are still pretty happy with him, though it appears that some have found a replacement.

That replacement had best be up to the task. As the storm clouds gather, the silver lining for Republicans is that, with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, they will not be able to blame us for anything anymore. Whatever happens from here will be up to them. I have no doubt whatsoever that if they implement even half of the economic plans they have proposed, they will make things much worse. What will happen when their god-president fails?

Republicans need to be taking advantage of this time to regroup. First, though, we must acknowledge that, by abandoning the fiscal responsibility that had been a fundamental principle of the party for decades, the party set itself up for the rise of this false messiah of socialism. The people have every right to doubt Republican commitment to free markets and spending cuts after the hideous displays they have witnessed during the Bush administration.

Expecting the party to reform on its own, however, seems ridiculous. If Republican leaders failed to uphold their principles, we the people also failed to hold them accountable. If we want to take back the Republican Party, reform it, and hope to have any chance of success, we all have to increase our involvement with the party, as well as make our demands very clear. Congress and our Party leaders have shown that they are utterly unprepared for and confused by the massive economic issues that broadsided the campaigns this year. If you find yourself to be just as clueless and confused by these issues as Congress is, though, you cannot hope to help set them on the correct path. So start by educating yourself.

The issues we will be facing are indeed immense. For most people, it has been many years since they last sat in an economics classroom, if they ever did at all. Fortunately, one of my honorable friends managed to find a site that provides a very simple but comprehensive summary of all the issues we face. I invite you to check out Chris Martenson’s free Crash Course in the Economy. His short lessons will leave you in a much better position to understand exactly how we got here and what we are facing. It will also give you a very good idea of what to demand from the Republican candidates we will soon have to send out to clean up the disasters Obama and the Democrats will inevitably wreak in our society.

Military Guest Commentary: Why I Will Vote Republican

2008-10-29T12:50:00.005-06:00

* * * 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

2008-10-28T17:30:00.004-06:00

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

2008-10-27T12:53:00.003-06:00

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

2008-10-25T17:30:00.003-06:00

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

2008-10-24T10:01:00.005-06:00

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

2008-10-23T15:32:00.001-06:00

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

2008-10-20T13:12:00.003-06:00

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

2008-10-17T10:00:00.000-06:00

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

2008-10-16T06:30:00.002-06:00

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

2008-10-14T15:48:00.001-06:00

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

2008-10-13T15:52:00.001-06:00

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

2008-10-10T15:58:00.003-06:00

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

2008-10-09T16:15:00.000-06:00

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

2008-10-08T16:21:00.001-06:00

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

2008-10-06T16:33:00.002-06:00

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.

The Senate’s Arrogant Ignorance

2008-10-03T16:26:00.000-06:00

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

Dear friends,

Last night, I made the mistake of watching C-SPAN as the Senate voted for the woe begotten bailout plan. I find it amazing that we did not conduct a second American Revolution after C-SPAN was created and enabled Americans to see the staggering ignorance and incompetence of their elected officials on a daily basis. Senator Kay Baily Hutchison of Texas, unbelievably a Republican -- if that has any real meaning anymore, gave a speech saying that she and all her colleagues heard overwhelming opposition to the bailout plan from the people. However, she went on to say that she didn't think the people understood all the improvements the Senate added to the bill and how vital it really was. What patronizingly insipid bloody rubbish! The U.S. Senate may have a difficult time understanding basic economics, but the people seem to be doing just fine.

The people understand that bailout plan remains extremely immoral and totally unworkable, no matter how many frivolities the Senate used to decorate it. Money Morning has an excellent analysis of just why the Senate touchups won't come anywhere close to solving the problem, and actually make it far more difficult for us to recover.

Despite its alterations though, did the Senate change anything fundamental that the people would have difficulty understanding? No. The people still know that giving $700 billion of tax money we do not have to bail out the failures of private industry is immoral and stupid. Those who have been paying close attention also know that it is not nearly enough to even cover the bad mortgage debts, much less the countless other risky derivatives of unknown value, which are sitting out there on corporate books like ticking time bombs.

The people might be interested to know that this bill also allows the government to bail out not only our own banks and corporations, but also foreign firms. Apparently, Europe is no longer responsible for its own well being-they can wait for the American taxpayer to save them. After all, we have been printing more money so fast so often, it is probably easier for us to just keep the presses rolling.

Another thing that the people understand, but the Senate seems to have forgotten, is that controlled economies (i.e. communism and socialism) have proven to be astounding failures. Yet, now we hear senators saying that, while free markets are good in theory, we have to deal with reality right now. It seems that in the perverse world of the Senate, dealing with reality means falling back on known failures. The Financial Post has a good deal to say about that particular idiocy.

In a capitalist system, though, our markets are designed to quickly deal with failures. It allows us to purge ourselves of unworkable or poisoned assets and quickly refocus on good assets. If a company cannot do that effectively it will fail, and the viable parts of the market it formerly occupied will be quickly taken over by other, better run companies. This is what should happen. Indeed, as the Ludwig Von Mises Institute points out, this is exactly what has happened with the failure of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. There was no market catastrophe, there was simple readjustment. The Senate has failed miserably to understand these fundamentals. Worse, in their ignorance they have presumed to set themselves above the will and knowledge of the people. We should all remember that on election day-and we should be reminding the House members of that before they vote on this again on Friday.

We Won the Bailout Battle—But the War Continues

2008-09-30T16:28:00.000-06:00

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

Dear friends,

In my last column, "Stop the Bailout!" I said that we all needed to contact our Congress people and demand that they vote against the $700 billion bailout plan. Thanks to all of you, and millions of other people who did just that, we were successful in pushing Congress to kill that ghastly legislation. Congratulations! Nonetheless, we must remain vigilant.

The bailout bill was dreadful. My last column already referred to some of its problems, such as massively increasing our national debt, starting us on the road to hyperinflation, swiftly devaluing the dollar to the point of collapse, and entangling the Federal government in our economy to an extent never before seen. The final version Congress put out, though, also contained no meaningful restrictions on the spending or the price. It contained several arguably unconstitutional provisions, and fretted endlessly about executive compensation packages, which are almost irrelevant given the enormous scope of this bailout. In demanding that the companies involved repay the government in five years, it also failed to remove these bad debts from the market and created unrealistic expectations which serve to discourage outside investment and virtually guarantees that we will be saddled with these ailing companies for many years to come. Everyone agrees that it was a bad bill. Everyone also agrees that it was the only bill Secretary Paulson would approve. Fortunately, the secretary does not run this country. Nonetheless, though we won the battle, the war has only just begun.

Even now, the leadership in Congress is preparing to resubmit the bailout plan. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems to think she can get the votes she needs if the new package includes language that would ease bankruptcy laws to allow debtors to keep more of their assets, thus making it much easier to file for bankruptcy. Making it easier for people to default on their debts is not a cure for our economy. This would not make the bill better; it would make it far worse.

Unfortunately, our esteemed presidential candidates are not helping matters either. Those of you who watched the first presidential debate saw the deer-in-the-headlights looks they gave, and heard their obfuscating answers when they were asked about the economic issues we are facing. Neither of them has a good understanding of what is happening in our economy. The fact that they both supported the bailout is proof enough of that. They both have made the mistake of listening to Bernanke and Paulson, and maintain that Congress simply MUST do something or the consequences will be dire.

Not so. Though the market will undoubtedly go through some painful readjustments as it purges itself of these poisoned assets and failed companies, its recovery, if left alone, has the potential to provide good, strong investment opportunities. With low stock prices and increased savings, Money Morning predicts that U.S. domestic capital will actually increase, reducing outsourcing and improving our deficit of payments--a good thing. This will leave us in a much stronger economic position to face the real threats coming quickly at us, such as Peak Oil and the liquid fuels crisis. However, this may not be possible if Congress and our presidential candidates keep trying to drive us into a depression with their hasty and ill conceived plans. Thus, it remains incumbent upon us to show them what they need to be doing. Here is what you can do right now to help:

1. Educate yourself. If you have not done so already, find reliable people who have been predicting these problems for a long time (that rules out Benanke and Paulson). Listen to what they have to say about what caused the problems and what we have to do to solve them. For a start, I strongly recommend Financial Sense. It has many useful articles and the Financial Sense Newshour (3rd Hour with Jim Puplava and John Loeffler) is a wonderful weekly broadcast that will keep you abreast of everything you need to know in terms that are easily understood to laypeople.

2. Keep pressure on Congress. Keep writing and calling your Congress members-and maybe even the leadership. Tell them not to pass this bailout--in any form. If they never get any support from the people, they won't act, and they won't ruin our country. If we slack off, though, they are likely to pass some new horror that will be even worse than the last one. A dismantling of our bankruptcy laws would be just that.

3. If you want to tell Congress what it should be doing, you might suggest that they repeal some of the bad government programs that got us here in the first place such as the Community Reinvestment Act, which actually encouraged giving loans to high risk borrowers as a social engineering project. After that, they should think about reining in the Federal Reserve and its fast and loose monetary policy which has left us with terrible inflation, forced business into high risk investments just to get a decent rate of return given our piteously low interest rates, and left the dollar on the verge of collapse. After that, they need to think about eliminating certain corporate and capital gains taxes to encourage investment.

4. Protect yourself and your family. I am not a financial advisor, so I cannot tell you what would be best for you and your family. I can say, however, that there are plenty of opportunities to be had if you are paying attention. Gold, silver, and other precious metals are very good security again failure of the currency. In an economy where energy is increasingly becoming an issue, oil and other energy investments look good. Do not have too much faith in government, its programs, or its bonds, however. We are all seeing, right now, the dangerous actions our government has been willing to take with regard to our financial systems. We were able to stop the bailout, but there is no guarantee we will stop future idiocy. If the government's foolishness manages to utterly debase the currency, you do not want to be depending on that same government for your financial security.

Stop The Bailout! It Is Time To Demand Inaction

2008-09-25T16:30:00.000-06:00

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

Dear friends,

We are facing economic calamity. We stand upon the very brink of destruction yet, even now, we have the capacity to save ourselves from utter ruin and escape to heal our wounds. We must act quickly though, for the U.S. Congress, in its unerring stupidity, is poised to push us into the gaping maw of doom in a matter of days. It is now incumbent upon every citizen to defend this country by contacting their congress people and begging them NOT to pass this ghastly bailout.

Our choice is simple. We can choose not to pass this bailout, in which case the market will stumble a bit before correcting itself. Some companies will fail, jobs will be lost, and times will be hard. Then the good companies, who have managed to run themselves well, will begin to fill in the gaps left by the failures. Other, dynamic businesses will also grow into the market space, and we will recover.

The other option is to pass this bailout. Thus, we spend more than $700 billion we do not have for a result that is not guaranteed. In doing so, we prop up failed enterprises and create an unending dependence on the government that may require many billions of dollars more to sustain. We have none of this money. To do this, we either need to borrow more money and virtually double our national debt or print more money. Either way, inflation will skyrocket and the value of the dollar will be obliterated. What was a bad economic situation will become full economic ruin. In this case, the whole of the world's economy will face depression and we will not recover for a very long time.

Thus, we can restrain ourselves now, suffer through our hardships and recover as quickly as we can, or congress can pass this bailout and we can suffer terribly for a very long time in full economic ruin.

That is our choice. Congress does not see it because they are too busy looking at elections and think they must be seen to do something--something they do not understand. They are more afraid of losing an election than losing the country. In this case, though, they must do nothing. Only if they refrain from acting will we be saved. We all must write to our congress people immediately, before it is too late, and demand that they do not do this thing--that they do not sacrifice this nation to their ambitions-- and that they do not pass this bailout! Time is running out.

P.S. Ron Paul has issued a similar call you may read here.

Sarah Palin: A Change More Profound than Giving Speeches

2008-09-02T17:03:00.000-06:00

By Julian Dunraven

If this election is really all about change, then November will offer voters a choice between candidates who like to talk about change, and candidates who live for change.

On the left, we have Sen. Barak Obama who, in his extremely short tenure in the U.S. Senate, has never once broken with his party's agenda to champion needed reforms. For his running mate, he has chosen Sen. Joe Biden, a bastion of the liberal establishment for the last 35 years.

On the right, we have Sen. John McCain, who has made a career of going against anyone he thought was wrong--even if that occasionally includes members of his own party. As his running mate, he has chosen Gov. Sarah Palin, who has already proven that she is a consummate and principled reformer. She took on some of the most powerful members of her own party--including Sen. Ted Stevens--to fight corruption and bring ethics and accountability back to government. She slashed budgets, cut taxes and even sold the governor's private jet on E-Bay to bring fiscal responsibility back to government. And unlike so many modern politicians who like to talk about values but rarely live by them, Gov. Palin doesn't just say she is pro life and pro-family--she chose to have her youngest baby even though she knew he would have Down Syndrome, and she has been incredibly supportive of her daughter, who is also choosing to have her baby--despite the difficulties of young motherhood.

Gov. Sarah Palin is a remarkable woman who somehow manages to impress both fiscal and social conservatives at the same time. I can't remember the last time Dr. James Dobson and I agreed on anything but the quality of the weather, yet we are both excited about Gov. Palin and I think the reasons for that are clear: she represents what the Republican Party, at its best, used to be, what it should be, and what it will be again.

Change is coming, but not with Obamamania. Long after that fever breaks and passes, the true reformers, John McCain and Sarah Palin, will be hard at work restoring the glory of this country which Congress and Bush have so badly tarnished.

Supreme Court Unleashes Legal Beast To Trouble Colorado's 2nd District

2008-06-29T17:13:00.000-06:00

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

I have never liked campaign finance reform laws. The notion that one can take the influence of money completely out of politics seems, at best, woefully naive and, at worst, ridiculously absurd. Nonetheless, in so many ways our lawmakers and activists continue to try. After they finish attempting to put all sorts of fetters on the evil beast of our political system, the Supreme Court inevitably comes by and proceeds to cut about half the restraints. Of course, this simply creates a very angry beast that has to lurch clumsily about using only one leg and one arm. And people wonder why campaign regulations are always such a disaster. Well, the Supreme Court has, yet again, taken its judicial scissors to the latest Congressional fetter: the Millionaire Amendment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). And yes, the beast is already crashing about angrily.

Let me try to sum up the bizarre laws at issue in very brief terms. Between the meddling of Congress and the stilted reasoning of the Court, the government may impose limits on how much money people may contribute to any given campaign, but not on how much money the campaigns can spend. Also, there is no limit to how much an individual candidate can contribute to his campaign. The reason for this is that money is speech. Contributions may be limited because they still express the message of support for a candidate but, in being limited, also prevent corruption or the appearance thereof. However, the candidate is free to use as much of his own speech/money to promote his cause as he wants. To limit that would be to limit his speech too directly.

Naturally, this creates an advantage for rich candidates. They can spend their own money without limit while a poorer candidate, who may have rich friends, cannot get as much money out of those friends because of the campaign contribution limits. Thus, Congress passed the so called Millionaire Amendment so that if a rich candidate used enough of his own money, the contribution limits for the poorer candidate would be near tripled while the contribution limits for the richer candidate would remain the same. This would continue until the two candidates had eliminated the financial difference between them.

Now, though, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, has declared in Davis v. Federal Election Commission that this balancing scheme is unconstitutional. Apparently, this imbalance does not directly limit speech, but creates a substantial penalty for a rich candidate who chooses to exercise his right to speech robustly (i.e. spend a lot of his own money and trigger the provisions of the amendment). Thus, the Court has declared that the law must go.

Naturally, the government has objected that this means that rich candidates will once again have a huge advantage in elections given the contribution limits. The Court is aware of this. However, Justice Alito reminds us all that it was Congress who created this problem in the first place with its bizarre attempts to regulate campaign contributions. Congress also has the power to fix this situation. He recommends:

If the normally applicable limits on individual contributions and coordinated party contributions are seriously distorting the electoral process, if they are feeding a "public perception that wealthy people can buy seats in Congress," Brief for Appellee 34, and if those limits are not needed in order to combat corruption, then the obvious remedy is to raise or eliminate those limits. But the unprecedented step of imposing different contribution and coordinated party expenditure limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment.
In my own humble opinion, Congress would be well advised to adopt Justice Kennedy's recommendations from his dissenting opinion in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000). He pointed out that all of these attempts to limit the flow of money just serve to create problems or push it underground where there is virtually no accountability or transparency (such as 527 groups). Thus, he suggests that, rather than limiting contributions or expenditures, Congress should simply require that all contributions be reported and made public. Certainly, the internet is more than capable of providing instant access to this information for anyone who wants to know. In that way, the public could judge for themselves whether a candidate was too beholden to any particular donor or interest group and vote accordingly. Now there is a novel thought: trusting the voters to make decisions themselves.

For those of you interested in what the dissent had to say, Justice Stevens seems to think there is nothing at all wrong with this imbalanced scheme. Indeed, he goes so far as to contend that Congress should limit both contributions and expenditures. It seems he feels that if the campaigns were forced to spend less, then the quality of their message would be forced to improve and he would not have to ensure watching so many of these annoying and repetitious political advertisements on television any longer. It is rare that a Justice so plainly expresses his personal opinions and tastes as a matter of law. Preventing the Court from being populated by others who feel at liberty to do so may be the single most important reason to elect John McCain as our next president-despite the fact that he is partially responsible for saddling us with these nightmarish campaign laws in the first place.

In the meantime, we shall watch the beast of our current system flail about in the 2nd Congressional district where the millionaire idiot author of Colorado's ethics debacle, Jared Polis, just triggered the now unconstitutional amendment and his opponents, Joan Fitz-Gerald and Will Shafroth, are left without the benefit of the increased contribution limits it would have provided them.

On Heller

2008-06-27T17:16:00.002-06:00

By Julian Dunraven

Today, virtually every newspaper and broadcaster across the nation has been trumpeting the news that we have a newly expressed fundamental freedom: an individual right to keep and bear arms, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in The District of Columbia v. Heller. If you woke up this morning breathing a bit easier and feeling a little more free, that is why. What every article and story will tell you is that the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban. However, most stories seem to be missing two important points: the opinion was quite funny, and it went a lot further than people seem to be grasping.

Justice Scalia wrote for the majority. To read his opinion is to be transported back to grade school, listening to your teacher patiently instruct you on basic grammar. If you ever wondered what use it was to learn all those annoying rules governing punctuation, Scalia will be happy to explain how one of your basic rights rests upon the use of three commas in the Second Amendment.

The amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Throughout, the opinion, Scalia expounds on the use of those commas, the differences between prefatory and operative clauses, and even goes so far as to dissect and rearrange the Amendment as a grammar school teacher might demonstrate to his students while diagramming sentences. Remember those sentence diagrams? He then instructs us as to the differences between singular and plural, the use of verbs and their objects, modifiers, prepositions, and idiomatic usage. English teachers everywhere should be rejoicing.

In the footnotes, scattered throughout, one can imagine that Teacher Scalia has just been interrupted during lecture by a question from a student-a particularly annoying little boy who bears a strong resemblance to a miniature Justice Stevens. Scalia, like any good teacher, generally responds by patiently explaining why his pupil's assumptions are mistaken. Occasionally though, like all good teachers driven to distraction by particularly annoying students, Scalia offers a sharp rebuke, openly speculating as to whether Justice Stevens might have leapt through the looking glass to study law with the Mad Hatter. He also describes Stevens' grasp of the English language as "dead wrong," "an absurdity," and "grotesque." Judging from Scalia's remarks, by the time I got to the dissent I was expecting to find near illiterate ravings.

For example, here is a small sample of the opinion as Scalia responded to Stevens' contention that "bear arms" did not just mean "to carry weapons or armor" but "to carry weapons in a military context."

In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the
Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.

He also remarks that:

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of selfdefense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.

In any case, Scalia manages to save the English language from being tortured and ravaged by Justice Stevens. As a result, we now have a solidly expressed individual right to keep and bear arms defined by a most amusing opinion. We have quite a bit more than that too.

Most articles are reporting that Scalia's opinion preserves gun control laws regarding schools, certain public places, and bans on automatic weapons. This is not precisely true. The opinion simply states that those items were not at issue before the Court and will therefore be presumed to be valid until specifically contested. Yet the Court just issued a very broad embrace of an individual right to keep and bear arms, especially in the interest of self defense. Moreover, it also adopted, as a standard for protected weaponry, that which is "in common use at the time." The only limit the Court articulated was to say that, "that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

In the dicta, Scalia acknowledged that, as standard issue for our infantry, M-16s might be protected. However, as they are not commonly used by the citizenry, they might not be protected. As he points out toward the end of the opinion, the Court only expressed a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms. He openly invites further lawsuits to help determine just how far that right may go-much to the chagrin of the dissenting Justices who rightly see a flurry of litigation coming and the probable overturning of a good number of longstanding regulations.

This is an exciting time, the first formal expression of a right we have had for 200 years. I look forward to seeing how we develop this right. In the meantime, teachers, you now have solid evidence which to prove to your truculent students that good grammar can lead to greater freedom.

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

Climate Change Blasphemy Must Be Prosecuted Says NASA Scientist

2008-06-23T17:28:00.000-06:00

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

It always amazes me to see how people view the legal system. Dr. James Hansen, vaguely referred to by The Guardian as one of the world's leading climate scientists (presumably due to the fact that he becomes hysterical more swiftly than the others), now thinks we should prosecute oil company executives for, "high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming."

Last time I checked, expressing doubt as to any theory, and then trying to disprove that theory, was part of the scientific method--not a violation of the criminal code. But never mind that, we have important criminal accusations to consider.

So, what are crimes against humanity and nature anyway? Article 7 § 1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as:

any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of
the attack:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in
violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on
political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in
paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible
under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this
paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great
suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Strangely, it says nothing about climate at all. Even if it did, Global Warming might be widespread, but could hardly be called a systematic attack upon any civilian population by oil company executives from the lawful operation of their businesses.

That leaves crimes against nature. Crimes against nature are not international crimes at all. They are generally part of state law. They forbid things like masturbation, oral sex, and sodomy. After the Supreme Court’s opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), most of the so called crimes against nature are unconstitutional as they violate our fundamental right to privacy. Of course, bestiality and necrophilia are both still forbidden, but Global Warming just does not seem to fit into this category does it? Then again, perhaps it does.

It seems the oil companies have violated neither international nor domestic law with their pernicious doubts about Global Warming. Of course, this is not the real problem here. The particular criminal charge does not matter so long as we can find one that will work to silence these doubters once and for all.

Generally speaking, true scientists want a lot of doubt expressed about their theories. They want the whole scientific community to have a go at them, and, if they still stand up, undamaged, at the end of the day the whole world is likely to embrace them. Such is not the case with Global Warming, though. Almost any rational person can manage to find considerable holes in the Global Warming theories. A scientist would say this means it requires more research and study.

Dr. Hansen and his ilk, however, remind us that this is about more than just science or law: it is about moral goodness. More research and more study takes time. Persuading lawmakers to act takes even longer. But we know what is evil now. Global Warming is evil. Those who doubt it are evil. There are many of them out there—doubting—and they are getting away with it!

There was once a time when our legal system would have accommodated such thinking. Indeed, both Church and State tried for a long while to prosecute irritating “doubters” for insufficient belief. Back then, though, we did not use those words. Instead, we used words like Inquisition, heretics, and blasphemy. The system had a splendid effect upon morality, but apparently science lagged a bit. We called that time the Dark Ages. Ironically, today, any government that tried to manage belief in such a way would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. See supra, Article 7 § 1(h).

Vote No– The Government Says So

2006-08-29T19:04:00.000-06:00

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

Honorable Friends:

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has decided Colorado citizens need assistance from the federal government in deciding how to vote this November. Specifically, the DEA doesn’t want mere citizens getting confused about what’s good for them and voting to legalize something as terrible as possessing an ounce of marijuana. Thus, the federal government is condescending to inject itself into our state ballot process and campaign against this initiative. “DEA raises cash to fight pot issue.” Already, the DEA has $10,000 to spend on its campaigning efforts.

The agency tells us we shouldn’t worry about this, though, and that their efforts are completely legal. Given that the applicable law was designed to prevent the executive agencies from partisan campaigning, and did not contemplate non-partisan ballot initiatives, the DEA may in fact be correct that it is acting within the technical bounds of law, if not its spirit. Still, it is rather telling that the DEA’s campaign fund comes from private donations and not tax dollars, despite the DEA’s contention its actions are proper. Surely, if the agency directors are avoiding the use of tax money, it must occur to them on some level that their actions are wrong.

Whether one agrees with Amendment 44 or not, the actions of the DEA should worry us all. The executive branch of government is designed to enforce the laws. Yet, the executive branch has become so large, that Congress cannot possibly have time to deal with all the issues that arise as each executive department carries out its mandate. Thus, executive agencies have the power to create administrative policies and regulations in their spheres of influence that are every bit as binding as legislatively made law. Thus, they have taken on a good deal of legislative power as well as executive. Moreover, many federal agencies have their own administrative courts to oversee disputes arising from their actions, thus assuming judicial power. This is a huge collection of power in the executive branch. Now, the executive branch seeks even to assert itself into citizen law making processes by telling people how to vote. This is simply too much. We must restrain this behemoth, many headed monster that is the U.S. executive branch.

Now, to be fair, I do not doubt that the input of the DEA might be useful in debating Amendment 44. However, that input should be solicited by citizen opponents of the amendment. It is those independent citizens who should then be raising money to campaign against the amendment, and they who should decide how to use the DEA’s information in that campaign. The DEA and the executive branch of the federal government should not be intervening in our state elections to tell our people how it thinks we should vote. Last I checked, that sort of behavior was expected of Communist and Socialist regimes. In this country, the people are supposed to be telling the administration what to do—not the other way around.

We have grown used to a sort of nanny state in this country. We have decided that we want our government to provide certain programs as safeguards against our own stupidity. So be it. If, however, we now truly desire a state that eliminates even the need to think for ourselves, a state all to happy to tell us what our opinion should be, then we have no business calling ourselves a free country. We should simply shut up about those annoying things called civil liberties, take our state issued pacifiers, and let the government do whatever it thinks best. As I am not quite ready for permanent mental infancy, I think it would behoove Congress to amend the Hatch Act, and prevent the executive branch from campaigning period.

Judge Rules Against Bush for Wiretapping Without Warrants: Triumph or Tragedy?

2006-08-19T18:52:00.000-06:00

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

Honorable Friends:

All day long, I have listened to the shrieking of my conservative friends as they denounce the ‘terrible’ decision by a U.S. district court judge to end the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. ACLU v. NSA. It seems they think the honorable judge has put all of national security at risk with the naive notion that we can fight terrorism according to the same rules we use to fight common criminals. Knowing the miserable quality of reporting the major media sources continually exhibit on questions of law, I understand why they hold such a dismal opinion of this case. However, having read the honorable judge’s opinion myself, I am thoroughly convinced that she has actually strengthened national security, and that conservatives would be the last people to take issue with this decision if they only took the time to read it. It is based soundly in traditional conservative principles. Let me see if I can condense it here.

First, no state secrets were ever at risk. The court considered the legality of the wiretapping program based on statements the Bush administration has already made public: (1) The wiretapping program exists. (2) The Bush administration monitors communication between U.S. citizens and people overseas suspected of having some connection, to a terrorist organization. (3) The monitoring is conducted without warrants.

In considering these facts, the court looked to our history. It pointed out that searches and seizures without warrant were among the offenses committed by King George III against the American colonists prior to the Revolutionary War. These searches terrified the people and chilled any speech or publication that might criticize the King for fear of being labeled seditious. After the American Revolution, the Founders enshrined two amendments into the Constitution in order to prevent such abuses from ever occurring again. We now know these as the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.--U.S. CONST. Amend. I.

The right the of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, andeffects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, andno Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath oraffirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.--U.S. CONST. Amend. IV.

These two amendments work together to protect some of the most basic liberties we hold so dear. However, Congress is mindful, too, that when it comes to national security, the obligations of these amendments might be too cumbersome to carry out in the ordinary course of business. Thus, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as, “the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence communications may be conducted.” 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(f). This act sets up a special and secret court to grant surveillance warrants to the administration. Acknowledging the need to act quickly in matters of national security, it even gives the administration up to 72 hours after already beginning surveillance to seek a warrant. And so Congress has wisely provided for the administration to see to the needs of national security, while still permitting to judiciary to ensure the protection of civil liberties.

The Bush administration, however, has argued this is insufficient. It claims the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, should have the right to see to matters of national security as he sees fit, independent of the laws of Congress and the warrant reviews of the judiciary. As one of the great Founders, James Madison, wrote in the Federalist Papers, though, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” THE FEDERALIST NO. 47. The court refused to allow President Bush to usurp both the Legislative and Judicial branches of government, and reminded the President that he is sworn to uphold and abide by the entire Constitution, not just Article II.

“He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation .”-- The Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson wrote those words over 200 years ago describing a few of the offenses committed by King George III against the American colonists. Today, they could as easily apply to the warrantless wiretapping program of President George Bush II—or they would had the court not stuck it down. In this case, the court defended the U.S. Constitution and the liberties it enshrines, protected the separation of powers from dissolving into tyranny, and provided legitimate means for the defense of this country—all principles long cherished by conservatives. In the end, the court managed to strengthen our national security, both against the terrorists that seek to destroy us from outside our borders, and the possibility of tyranny that could destroy us from within.

As the court noted in its conclusion, “Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution. As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967):

Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile. Id. at 264.”

Justice, Privacy, and JonBenet Ramsey

2006-08-17T23:55:00.000-06:00

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

Honorable Friends,

What is your favorite freedom this year? That is the question one of my dear friends asks my salon every 4th of July. It is interesting to listen to the answers. In 2003, my favorite freedom was privacy, and the right given to all people, both heterosexual and homosexual, to develop their most intimate relationships free from government intrusion. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003). This year, only a month removed from Independence Day, I again think privacy is one of my favorite freedoms—but I no longer see government as the only mortal threat to it.

Tonight, my salon again considered the importance of privacy as we learned of the latest developments in the JonBenet Ramsey Case. One honorable gentleman argued quite passionately that the entire media system owes the Ramsey family a very good apology. It is hard to argue with that. The news media overtly accused the entire Ramsey family of murder, and splashed their morbid theories across the front pages of nearly every paper in the country for weeks. Meanwhile, countless books flooded the presses, excoriating one Ramsey after another. Yet, there was never any trial of justice. No court of law or rules of evidence ever governed the accusations hurled at the Ramseys by the media. Now, it seems the Ramseys may finally be vindicated. My honorable friend is correct to say that the media has done this family a horrible injustice to add to their terrible loss.

Yet, if the media acted villainously, it did so only because such behavior was selling papers—and books and magazines, and all manner of tripe. Offering readers a window into the glamorous lives of the wealthy, all the intrigue and deception of a mystery novel, and the self satisfying illusion of moral superiority to the rich, the JonBenet story appealed to the basest voyeurism that has been one of this country’s most disgusting vices for more than a century.

Not so long ago, the media would publish intimate details and itineraries of celebrity figures. The population loved it—and so did assassins. They used the timelines to target Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy, F. Roosevelt and Reagan, as well as notables such as George Wallace, Robert Kennedy, and John Lennon. Most recently, their intrusive tactics have directly cased the death of Lady Diana, Princess of Wales. Though these tragedies have finally convinced at least the U.S. media to stop publishing celebrity itineraries, the media seems to have found new ways to ruin lives. I speak of the life dissecting trial by press, which indulges in the most gruesome and appalling speculations no court of law would ever allow, and Justice herself would recoil in horror. My honorable friend has called this most frightfully un-Christian, and yet this mostly Christian population cannot seem to get enough of it. “Love your neighbor’s misery as yourself,” seems to be the new Golden Rule.

The great political heroine, Alice Roosevelt, daughter of Teddy Roosevelt and icon of the Republican Party, dedicated much of her life to the cause of privacy and ending these invasive and life threatening practices. She set a marvelous example. It would be so nice to hear politicians trumpet that cause once again. And yet, when it comes to matters of privacy, it is Alice’s own party—the Republican Party-- that betrays the cause most terribly. It is the Republican Party--the devoutly Christian Republican Party—that stands most ready to comment on the private lives of others and to overtly condemn the constitutional right to privacy. For the sake of Justice, for the sake of decency, and for the sake of liberty, the Republican Party—my party—needs to honor the memory of its great mistress and make privacy one of its favorite freedoms too.

Discussing the Ceasefire in Lebanon—Alice Roosevelt Style

2006-08-15T23:42:00.000-06:00

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

Perhaps one of my favorite political figures in American History is Alice Roosevelt Longworth, daughter of Teddy Roosevelt, wife of Speaker of the House Nicholas Longworth, known as the Grande Dame of the Republican Party, the Other Washington Monument, and the Witch of Washington. It was said in her time that dinner at the White House was nice, but you were not anyone special until you had tea at Alice’s. When Alice hosted tea, she always tried to sit Democrats next to Republicans, Catholics next to Protestants, and Liberals next to Conservatives claiming that if there was not at least one good argument by the end of the night it was to be regarded as a great failure.

Recently, my own guests for afternoon tea have done their best to emulate Alice’s salon, and by her standards my teas have been marvelous successes. Say what you will of this iconic lady, she certainly knew how to have a good time. The brawl began yesterday after one gentleman guest proclaimed his deep satisfaction with the ceasefire agreement in Lebanon and the great victory it meant for Israel and the United States. Suddenly, I felt like I was in the Knesset, so fiercely did my other guests denounce him. Though President Bush seems to support his argument, boldly proclaiming a victory in this morning’s press, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran did the same thing. I am afraid I am more inclined to agree with the later—and the majority of my guests.

It is without doubt that Israel managed to successfully seize and occupy much of southern Lebanon. This much was never in doubt and, in absolute terms, I suppose it can be called a victory. That said, Hezbollah managed to launch its rockets into Israel right up to when the ceasefire agreement took effect. Its leadership is still in tact; its militia is still well armed. Worse, no one forced it to sue for peace; rather, it is choosing to accept the ceasefire agreement as if it were a state actor. Finally, though Israel remains in existence, Hezbollah never expected to wipe it out in this conflict. All it needed to do was survive with a few teeth in order to show the entire world that standing up to Israel and, by proxy, the United States and Great Britain, is quite possible. This it managed to do with smashing success.

Israel and its British and American allies, however, were trying to obliterate Hezbollah. This they failed miserably to achieve, and now must content themselves with a ceasefire and hope the international force somehow manages to disarm, or at least restrain, Hezbollah—both extremely doubtful prospects. From where I am sitting, that looks like a defeat. Simply striking an enemy and knocking him over is useless. He will only get up again, angrier than ever, and find a way to hit back. Rather, if you strike at all, it should be such a blow that your enemy will not rise again. If anyone really believes that Hezbollah has been struck with such a blow, I can recommend several talented psychiatrists that can help work out such delusions.

A young lady acquaintance was the next person to jump into the fray. She contended that, victory or defeat, she thought Israel was totally out of line to react so forcefully to a few kidnappings. A shocked silence fell over my guests at this statement and the only sound was a slight plop and splash as the remaining bit of my crumpet leapt from my hand to drown itself despairingly in my tea.

The silence was brief, though, and both Democrat and Republican guests began to pepper her with questions: What about the barrage of rockets sent daily into Israel? What about the avowed purpose of Hezbollah to destroy Israel? Doesn’t Israel have a right to defend itself?

To these questions she could only wish that the two sides could tolerate one another. Faced with the fact that Israel has never disputed any other state’s right to exist, she wished that Muhammad was back to remind the Arab world of the virtues of peace. When she learned that Muhammad himself led the conquest of Arabia, she gave up entirely. She did not however, give up her position. She maintained that she simply felt that war was terrible and that Israel should have maintained peace above all.

To borrow again from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," she, “is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”.”

Both of these positions display a fundamental misunderstanding. My gentleman friend mistakenly believes that a technical victory on the field is enough to defeat the ideological motivation of Hezbollah. My lady friend refuses to believe that her feelings are insufficient to shape reality and that sometimes justice demands conflict. To cling to peace solely for the sake of peace even in the absence of justice is to accommodate evil. It is the position of a moral midget. Perhaps that is not a very nice way to depict one of my guests, but as Alice Roosevelt Longworth was fond of reciting, “If you can’t say something nice about someone, come sit right here next to me.”

Gay Rights, the Clash of Civilizations, and the Danger of Moderates

2006-08-14T20:29:00.000-06:00

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

After my last posting, I received a few comments telling me that I am underestimating the importance of the clash of civilization between the Islamic world and the West. I beg to differ. Though my last posting may have carried a whimsical flavor, I am well aware of how deep the differences go.

This November, the people of Colorado will vote on no less than three ballot issues dealing with gay rights. In this country, in this state, that means we will argue over the minutia of various legal rights possessed by married couples and whether to extend those legal rights to gay couples. Members of the GLBT community are, arguably, the most disenfranchised citizens of the United States, and yet the most important issue affecting that group at the moment is the bundle of property rights that go into making a legal marriage. If a country’s level of civilization can be judged by how it treats its underclass citizens, than I would say the United States is doing fairly well.

Now, let us compare U.S. civilization with that of Iraq. There, gay rights do not even begin to contemplate the nuances of various property claims and marriage contracts. In Iraq, those who support gay rights ask only that homosexual people be allowed the right to live at all. Jennifer Copestake reports in The Observer that Shia death squads now roam the land executing gay men. “Gays flee Iraq as Shia death squads find a new target.” Barbaric as that seems, it is made worse by the fact that these death squads also target and execute young boys who have been forced into prostitution.

One might think the new Iraqi government and law enforcement would be appalled by such behavior. But one would be wrong. You see, under Islamic law, or Sharia, homosexuality is so reviled that to kill a gay man is no crime at all. Rather, it is considered an honor killing and will actually increase the killer’s chances of getting into heaven. Anyone who doubts this has only to visit the Middle East Research Institute’s TV Monitoring Project and view its collection of clips from Arab networks on homosexuality. In one notable clip from MEMRI TV, Saudi cleric 'Abd Al-Qader Shiba Al-Hamad, a teacher at the Al-Nabawi Mosque in Al-Madina, elaborates on the proper means of killing homosexuals: by flogging, beheading, or rolling down a mountain until dead. Under Islamic law, the underclasses of society have no rights, and should count themselves lucky just to survive.

I am well aware that this barbaric view does not dissipate merely through interaction with our Western culture. Many terrorists, dedicated to the absolute destruction of the West, have received their educations here in the United States or in the United Kingdom. Yet, they do not see our successes and freedoms; they see only our ‘sinful’ opulence and the riches their own nations do not have. I stand by my previous statements that, in the end, our trade and cultural exports can succeed in willingly seducing the Islamic world to our way of life. However, I also reiterate that those demanding that all people either follow the strict dictates of Islam or face death must themselves learn the meaning of fear and terror. Those who would force this barbarism on others must be met with merciless opposition.

This is not a politically correct view at the moment, I know. In this past week, I have heard the media bleat endlessly about the dangers of offending moderate Muslims. This, however, seems utterly ridiculous to me. Moderate Muslims should be offended. They should be shocked and appalled by the behavior of their fellow Muslims and the barbarism of Islamic law. I am beginning to agree with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his low opinion of so called ‘moderates.’ In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” expressing his frustration with white moderates, he states that, “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” Similarly, in the current situation, it is far more difficult to understand the ‘moderate’ Muslims who see the evil and barbarism of their fellows and do nothing than it is to understand those terrorist Muslims acting under the delusion of righteousness. Those who see evil and do nothing are more terrifying to me than those too stupid or deluded to see the evil in the first place.

Celebrating a Simple Life and Middle East Peace

2006-08-09T19:12:00.001-06:00

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

“But today, of all days, it is brought home to me: it is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life.” So says Mr. Bilbo Baggins in Peter Jackson’s epic production of The Lord of the Rings. How very right he is. And how very valuable are all those little touches that go into keeping our lives simple. We almost never think about them and yet without them our simple lives become quite impossible.

You see, two days ago, one of my most trusted and beloved servants quit my employment after many years without complaint. Neither notice nor explanation was given. There was no time to find any proper replacement. It happened quite suddenly. After a brief period of shocked disbelief, I found myself facing the horrible reality that my centralized air conditioning system was not going to work again. Panic provided the only chill to be found.

For those of you shaking your heads and clucking your tongues, I advise you to spend some time here in Colorado this summer. The weather might explain why many of our friends on the left are so desperate to grasp at any means, however far fetched, to combat Global Warming. For myself, I was just desperate to grasp for a fan as I suffered through the sweltering days and stifling nights, bemoaning how difficult it is to find good help these days.

Bemoaning, however, is somewhat taxing in such heat and it gets to be rather dull after a while. Eventually, my mind wandered to lighter subjects and began contemplating the Middle East peace process. After some reflection, I determined that the West should provide air conditioning to every home in the region and let it run for a year. After that, whenever trouble flairs up, power should be cut off for a while. That would do it.

No. I am not crazy. Well, not completely anyway.

I didn’t always have centralized air-conditioning. Back in England and the rest of the European continent, it is still quite rare. Now that I do have it though, I think of it as a basic necessity of life no civilized being should be without. More, because I am so accustomed to its presence in my life, its absence causes me intolerable discomfort and I am willing to do almost anything to restore it. I want that for the Middle East too. I want them to really know the benefits of Western Civilization—not just as seen on TV or preached to them by the Imams and Ayatollahs—but experienced first hand. ‘Piety’ of Islamic living is easy to maintain when that is all you have. ‘Blasphemy’ is easy to hate when it is someone else’s sin. Blasphemy doesn’t look so bad though when you come home from 110 degree weather to an air-conditioned home, chilled nicely to 70 degrees. Who cares if it is infidel work?

This has already worked with much of the region’s wealthy elite. Holding on to that wealth and the Western comforts it brings is perhaps the only real reason they cooperate with us at all. Now, it is the people who must learn to love our ways. The ancient Romans kept the same strategy when bringing their civilization to the outer reaches of the Empire—we call it Hellenization. It is a wonderful map to peace and stability—not to mention prosperity. Of course, it also requires that any refusal to engage in this civilized trade, and certainly any open hostility, must be met with such punishing and cruel reprisals as to make any the very thought of resistance painful. Both aspects of this strategy need to be reviewed closely by the Western powers. We are not doing nearly enough to Hellenize the people of the Middle East, nor do we seem willing to make resistance too painful even to contemplate.

In the meantime, I sit languidly in the heat and wait anxiously for the repairman to install the new unit. As I watch him work, I marvel at how much of a difference such a device has made in my life, and what such simple, thoughtless amenities might do for the world. “But today, of all days, it is brought home to me: it is no bad thing to celebrate a simple life.”