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

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

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”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.