Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Illegals’ Privacy Rights—Correctly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.