BlueCarp

Today's Denver Post Newspeak

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:53:00 +0000

The Denver Post has a front page article today on the city's "Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver," or GRID.

The papers says GRID "is funded by a $2.2 million grant from the Department of Justice." This is Newspeak designed to make the federal government, via the Department of Justice, appear to be a benevolent, kind entity.

A more accurate and truthful sentence would say that GRID "is funded by the federal government borrowing money your great grandchildren must pay back."

Global warming questions for true believers

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:43:00 +0000

Frank Tapy, in a letter to the Denver Post editor today, writes:

The giant corporate polluters who believe their profits would be threatened by legislation to protect the environment are unlikely to alter their denials; nevertheless, private citizens should not be threatened by an examination of available evidence.
Two initial questions for those with a willingness to discuss the issue: Do you understand the greenhouse gas principle? Moreover, are you aware that one of the products of combustion from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) is the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide?

The answers to both of your questions, Mr. Tapy, are "yes."

Now, I have some for you:

Do you understand that water vapor is a greenhouse gas?
Are you aware that water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect on earth? Did you know there is no organized effort to cut water vapor in the atmosphere? Have you considered why?
Did you know nuclear power has zero CO2 emissions? And that somehow nuclear power is almost always overlooked by the "warmers" as a solution to CO2 emissions? And that the "warmers'" solutions somehow almost always call for additional government regulation of industry? Did you realize that when government regulates an industry it has the power to grant waivers? Do you ever notice now companies that get such government waivers invariably have donated lots of money to politicians in power?
Did you know the temperature on Mars is increasing?
Are you aware that the ice age occurred without mankind's involvement?
Did you know the sun is very hot and has a considerable effect on earth's temperature?

Thank you for your time.

Become more like California? Are you serious?

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:46:00 +0000

Freelance writer Erich Bussian posits one of the most out-of-touch, ridiculous and sanctimonious columns in, well, at least a couple of days. (See "Still taking cues from California.")

I hereby nominate this sentence, apparently written without any sense of irony or sarcasm, for Most Absurd Comment of the Month:

"As Colorado's population continues to explode . . . California-style regulation becomes a necessity."

This level of complete unawareness leaves me speechless, a condition to which I am not accustomed.

===

Postscript: Methinks perhaps I have fallen prey to an April Fool's joke. If so, you got me.

Santorum - Republicans no longer the party of Goldwater and small govern...

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:30:00 +0000

Herman Cain v. Eric Holder on brainwashing

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:14:00 +0000

"It's just brainwashing ... pure and simple."
Hermain Cain on "progressive" methods, November, 2011.

"We need to do this everyday of the week and really just brainwash people."
Eric Holder, January, 1995

"I beg your indulgence, my liege."

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:46:00 +0000

The subjects line up, waiting their chance at a meeting with the king. Each has a desire. Each hopes the king will be moved by his presentation and deign to grant his wish. No one can be sure what moves the king. Oftentimes he seems moved by mere whim. But the subjects know if they do not ask, they have no chance. So they line up, they bow and scrape, and they beg.

It is a good thing such foolishness is a thing of the past.

What? It isn't? You mean this still goes on?

It is true.

It happened yesterday, in Denver. Six applicants begged the state for millions of dollars. The role of king is now played by the Colorado Economic Development Commission, a political board filled with political appointees by politicians. This board has the power to dole out millions of dollars. This largesse is ostensibly for local governments, but the money will end up with private contractors and other private companies.

For example, the city of Aurora seeks a state indulgence worth $123.8 million. The city is asking on behalf of Gaylord Entertainment Company, a private company with a market capitalization of $1.4 billion. Gaylord wants to build a huge, fancy hotel in Aurora, but will not do it without the government gift.

The theory behind this "Economic Development" is that tax breaks encourage business growth. Of course, that is absolutely true. But why do only those with the means and desire to scrape and bow and beg before the state board qualify? Why do politically connected applicants have to justify their business plan to a political board of political appointees? Why does Gaylord have the backing of the Aurora City Council for its massive project, but the mom and pop dry cleaner gets no support for any "economic development" of its business?

Because mom and pop do not have a "government relations" department. Because mom and pop do not have and can not afford a lobbyist. Because mom and pop do not have the time to put together a fancy power-point presentation for a group of politically connected appointees. Because mom and pop are too busy working. Because mom and pop are busting their butts earning money and not standing in line for a government gift.

Statists like to justify state action like this in the name of "fairness" and "equity." There is nothing fair or equitable about the king's whims.

Perrish Cox, Harvey Steinberg and keeping the state in check

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 19:10:00 +0000

I think the biggest statewide news of the day [Friday] is that former Denver Bronco Perrish Cox was acquitted on two counts of sexual assault of a victim unable to assess her condition. I of course have no idea of what actually happened over that Labor Day weekend in 2010, but everything I heard in the media made it look pretty bad for Cox.

Cox, Demarius Thomas and the accuser and others had been out partying, then came back to Cox' apartment. At that point, stories differ. It seems, however, that the accuser contacted Cox the next day and asked if they had “intimate contact.” Cox denied any such contact. Vehemently, it appears. As it turns out, the accuser found herself pregnant shortly thereafter and DNA showed Cox to be the father.

I thought it looked pretty bad. But Cox' lawyer, Harvey Steinberg, must’ve done a tremendous job. Cox was looking at 2 years to life in prison.

There are no winners in a case like this. But I give major props to Steinberg for making the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before it can lock someone in a cage. The state has an awesome power. It can take your life if you are convicted of a capital crime, it can certainly keep you locked up. It is important that someone makes the state prove its case. Even if the defendant appears to be guilty as sin – we can never let the state skate on its responsibility to use its power in a constitutional manner.

When we start to let the state slide – because we think someone is obviously guilty – there is nothing to stop the state from sliding when you get accused of something.

Economic Development: Letting the politically connected feed at the public trough.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:19:00 +0000

Denver Post editorial page editor Curtis Hubbard describes the Colorado Economic Development Commission as "doling out grants under a law intended to bring new visitors to the state."

In other words, the Commission will be giving public money to people, whom in the exercise of its considerable discretion, it deems worthy. More simply, they give free money to people they like.

And people wonder why corruption in government exists? "Economic Development" is code for "corporate welfare." It is corporatism. It enables the rich and politically connected to feed at the public trough.

The corporatists have succeeded so well they have people lining up to defend this nonsense. "It's good for the economy!" they say. No, it's good for the guy with his name on the check drawn from the public treasury. He can buy another boat with it. With your money. And he ain't gonna ask you to go water skiing with him, either.

State mandated "affordable healthcare" may be a great idea - but it ain't a "right."

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:49:00 +0000

Freelance writer Lisa Wirthman has a long defense of state involvement in health care in today's Denver Post. (See "Health vs Faith: The debate over insurance for contraceptives.")

One early paragraph in her column sums up the issue and explains why she is wrong. She asserts

While freedom of religion demands careful consideration, so does the right of low-income women to receive safe and affordable heath care.

The fundamental error should be obvious: there is no "right of low-income women to receive safe and affordable health care." None. Zero. Nada. Her entire analysis is based on a falsehood.

There are no "positive rights."

The Future of Freedom Foundation explains it well in an article by Sheldon Richman, "Wrong Rights." In oversimplified terms, a "positive right" is an entitlement. If, for example, Wirthman is correct and there is a right to receive safe and affordable healthcare, then someone has an obligation to provide that healthcare. The person asserting the right is entitled to the healthcare and it necessarily follows that someone MUST provide it, whether they wish to or not. There can be no moral justification for forcing someone to act against their wishes. That is the basis for tyranny.

"Oh, sure," some say, "maybe it's a teeny, tiny bit of tyranny, but it's really no big deal because we are all better off as a collective when some people are forced to act against their will." If the danger of such thought is not evident, well, then nothing is.

Wirthman argues that society is better off when it provides "safe and affordable healthcare" to everyone. Maybe so. On the other hand, maybe the best way to do that is by voluntary action and not the use of government force. We can have that debate.

But without a fundamental understanding of "rights," any debate is pointless. It is like arguing physics with someone that rejects Newton's Laws of Motion.

"Full speed ahead!" The RTD light rail scam

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:09:00 +0000

Westminster City Councilmember Mark Kaiser is displeased with the possibility that RTD will not build the Northwest corridor line through his town.

In the March 1, 2012 edition of the Westminster Window (page 7), he complains that the people of Westminster were promised a train, and, by God, they better get one. He wrote, "It is not a system unless it is built as promised and as the voters approved in 2004."

Like all too many, Kaiser focuses on only part of the promise. He sees the shiny train that was promised. Unfortunately, he is blind to the price tag that was also promised.

In 2004, voters approved a price tag of $894.6 million for the light rail expansion. Now RTD says the price tag is actually $1.7 billion. Like a modern, twisted version of Admiral Farragut, Kaiser says "damn the price tag, full speed ahead!"

Kaiser's refusal to acknowledge the cost is a refusal to acknowledge reality. This blindness is a common affliction of statists - they want something, damn it, and cost means nothing. Costs are irrelevant to those with this affliction. In the real world, however, costs matter.

Voters were duped in 2004. Giving RTD more money in 2012 would be like giving Bernie Madoff more money to invest.

Hopefully voters, despite the blindness of some, will not be played the fool again.

If I got to ask a question during CNN Republican debate in Arizona:

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:26:00 +0000

Senator Santorum, you have labeled yourself the only true conservative in the race. We are in Arizona, the birthplace of Barry Goldwater, who was known as "Mr. Conservative." Senator Goldwater's opinion toward the religious right was well-known. It can be summed up by this quote:

"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"

How would you respond to "Mr. Conservative," Barry Goldwater, here in his home state tonight?

The Three-Fifths Compromise in historical context.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:13:00 +0000

David Steiner, in his Colorado Voices column today, makes a common statement that bears some thought. (See "Take a tip from fourth-graders").

Steiner was a judge for an American Legion speech contest for high school students. The topic was the United States Constitution. "The high school students talked about ... how long it had taken for blacks to be counted as more than three-fifths of a person," among other topics, he said.

It has been my experience that most refer to that provision of the Constitution as an example of the racism that existed at the time. I find that curious, since the existence of slavery is a much better example. The "Three-Fifths Compromise" is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution. It reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

What does that mean in modern English? It means that when counting the population of a state for purposes of determining the size of that state's Congressional delegation, slaves would be counted as 3/5 of a person.

The problem was not this compromise, the problem was slavery. I find it disproportionate to cite this compromise as evidence of racism when it pales in comparison to the actual bondage of human beings. It is as if someone says, "yeah, there was slavery in Colonial America and people were owned like common chattel, but the real injustice was that they were only counted as 3/5 of a person when it came time to determine congressional representation!" In that light, it is absurd.

If asked, I bet most think it was the slave-owning southern states that did not want to count slaves as full people. After all, slaves were just property. But, no, that was not the case. It was the northern states that did not want to count slaves at all. Upon reflection, this makes sense. If slaves were counted in full, the south would have had a larger voice in Congress.

Therefore, the pro-slavery contingent wanted to count slaves as full people, but the anti-slavery contingent did not want to count them at all. This juxtaposition demonstrates the folly of citing the Three-Fifths Compromise as an example of racism.

The compromise is historically important, but not as important as the institution of slavery itself.

A response to "Why Obamacare is good for America"

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:07:00 +0000

The executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, my friend Dede de Percin, does her best to sell us on the benefits of Obamacare in the "Perspective" section of today's Denver Post. (See "Why Obamacare is good for America.")

I quote some of her statements, then respond underneath:

"Over the past few decades, America's health care system has been hurtling toward a crisis. Almost one-third of Coloradans — 1.5 million — either have health care coverage that is inadequate or have none at all. The primary reason is skyrocketing costs, which have priced out businesses and individuals alike."

Why the skyrocketing costs? Because of government mandated coverage, government regulation, and the inability to sell insurance across state lines, among other things.

"Decisions about our health care are too personal and important to be left to insurance companies."

But not too personal and important to be left to the United States Congress and state run exchange boards, apparently.

"Obamacare is starting to hold insurance companies accountable, controlling the runaway costs that prevent Coloradans from access to health care. For example, insurers must now justify premium rate hikes."

These rate rikes must be justified to a government board. I hope the inherent downside to government approval of prices is self-evident. Alas, I know it is not. See "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" entry on "Price Controls" for an in depth discussion.

"Essential preventive care is now considered a basic benefit for those with insurance and is available without co-pays or other cost-sharing because it keeps people healthier."

Keeping everyone healthier is a great goal. Pretending it can be done for free is a fantasy. The preventative care may not cost the consumer anything directly out of pocket, but the cost exists and it is paid by everyone. It is the ultimate in cost-sharing. Further, when a service has no marginal cost to the consumer, the demand for the service is virtually unlimited. With higher demand, prices necessarily rise for someone if not to the consumer directly. Costs exist. No legislation can abolish them.

"A major cost-containment initiative of Obamacare is the exchange. In 2014, Coloradans will be able to purchase affordable insurance in the Colorado Health Benefits Exchange, a statewide nonprofit organization. Intended to be a competitive, online marketplace similar to Travelocity..."

Wait... Travelocity was formed by government mandate? No? It was done by a private company in the free market? How is that possible? I thought only the government could make this happen. Perhaps not.

And this nonprofit state exchange plans on paying four executives $165,000 a year or more. It is amazing how political appointees always end up doing well in these state created nonprofits. It is pure corporatism. Nonprofit corporatism, but nonetheless corporatism. Some prefer to call it crony-capitalism (which, of course, is not capitalism at all).

"Since decisions about health care are too important to leave to others, the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and consumer-focused organizations are helping Coloradans make their voices heard by exchange board members."

Wait... health care decisions are too important to leave to others, so the exchange board members will make those decisions? Aren't they "others?" I am afraid I just do not follow that reasoning. (Not an uncommon occurrence for me, I realize).

I know de Percin means well. She wants to help those without health insurance coverage. She wants everyone to get the medical services they need.

But another layer of government bureaucracy will not achieve that admirable goal. Government, indeed, has a role, a very important one: policing fraud and enforcing benefits contractually promised to insureds in exchange for premiums. When government starts doing much beyond that, costs go up and coverage goes down.

Before the "system failed:" The death of a child.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:20:00 +0000

The Denver Post headline reads, "Family: System failed child."

It is a horrific story of an abused four year-old boy, now dead, allegedly at the hands of his maternal grandmother. The grandmother had been awarded custody of the boy's two older sisters. The boy was living under her care, as well. The boy's name was Gabriel.

Gabriel's paternal grandmother had called the county Human Services department multiple times over her concerns about the boy's treatment. The State will now investigate the circumstances of the boy's death and the county's response to the previous complaints. That investigation may or may not find problems with the county.

Ultimately, however, Gabriel's death is not a failure on the part of the government, although it may have played a part in not preventing it. Ultimately, the system did not fail this child.

Ultimately, his family failed him. The article makes no mention of his parents. Where are they? Perhaps they have passed away and the boy is an orphan. If not, where are they? Gabriel was not under the legal custody of his maternal grandmother, only his sisters Where were other family members ready to take care of the boy? Where was the church?

This tragedy underscores the futility of looking to the government for protection. No one in the Department of Human Services was Gabriel's blood. No one in that department was Gabriel's mother. No one in that department was this Gabriel's father. No one in that department was Gabriel's family. No one in that department was Gabriel's pastor.

No government agent can ever - ever - care about a child like his own blood. No government agent can ever have the compassion for that child like a man - or woman - of God.

If we, as society, looked to ourselves as individuals to help Gabriel, Gabriel would still be alive. Instead, we, as a society, have abdicated our personal duty as individuals and given it to the government, as a collective, to look out for children like this poor boy.

The collective works a 40 hour week. The collective goes home at 5:00. The collective punches a clock. A caring person -as an individual - never clocks out. Let us stop shirking our personal responsibilities onto the backs of a soulless collective.

Arguing for more state power over neglected and abused children is not compassionate. It exacerbates the problem.

No government agent is ever ultimately responsible for a child - his family, and by extension his church famiily - is responsible.

Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and media criticism

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:39:00 +0000

Mitt, Newt and Rick: Let's end the myth that the GOP believes in limited government.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:03:00 +0000

The 2012 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination should, once and for all, end the myth that the GOP is the party of limited government, free markets and personal liberty. I submit it is instructive to look at the records of the three remaining GOP candidates not named "Paul."

The following bullet points were excerpted verbatim from Reason.com's candidate profiles. Yes, I have cherry picked items inconsistent with limited government, free markets and personal liberty. Yes, these same profiles mention positions of each candidate that are consistent with limited government, free markets and personal liberty.

The point of this post, however, is to show that none of these three candidates believe, as a first principle, in limited government, free markets and personal liberty. They each are more than willing to make exceptions when expedient. Therefore, any claim that they believe in limited government, free markets or personal liberty must be prefaced by the qualifier "when convenient."

Mitt Romney:

Defends the mandate-and-regulate approach to health care he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts
He favors strong government surveillance powers to combat terrorism, and has praised the PATRIOT Act as a useful information gathering tool.
previously backed ... No Child Left Behind.
He's conveniently in favor of subsidies for corn-based ethanol.

Newt Gingrich:

Opposes Obamacare but in 2005 joined Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in "appearing to endorse proposals to require all individuals to have some form of health coverage."
Gingrich joined Obama's "Race to the Top" in 2009, calling Education Secretary Arne Duncan “a serious innovator."
Gingrich likes ethanol subsidies and has accused "big cities" and "big urban newspapers" of trying to hurt the farmers who benefit from them. Also likes fossil fuel subsidies and said in 2010 that "a low-cost energy regime is essential to our country." Supported cap and trade in 2007,

Rick Santorum:

While he was in office ... his record was, in the Club for Growth's words, "plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006." He was a strong supporter of dairy subsidies, voted for Medicare Part D and the 2005 highway bill
Sen. Santorum voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley law that he now wants to repeal. He also backed steel tariffs and was a player in the GOP's corporatist K Street Project. After initial opposition to the program, he became a big AmeriCorps booster.
"This idea that people should be able to go and do whatever they want and it doesn't really matter as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, that's not our founders' view of freedom."
He joined Hillary Clinton's crusade against violent video games, used campaign finance regulations to threaten critics' freedom of speech, and favors a porn crackdown.
... he has warned against "the 10th amendment run amok."
He also has a history of supporting national schooling standards. He voted for the No Child Left Behind bill in 2001.
... he has an on-again, off-again history of support for energy subsidies as well. In 2008 he called for Washington to "mandate that all cars sold in the United States...be 'flex-fuel vehicles'—that is, they should be able to run on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline."

Can we quit pretending? The GOP loves government programs. One might be able to make the case that the GOP loves government programs less than Democrats, but that is damning with faint praise.

Calling Ron Paul "isolationist" is either ignorant or dishonest.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:03:00 +0000

Words have meanings, people.

There are many legitimate criticisms of Ron Paul, but calling him "isolationist" is simply a misuse of the word. It is either done purposefully to misrepresent and impugn him or out of ignorance. From Merriam-Webster:

Isolationism - a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations.

(emphasis added).

Any statement that Paul wants the U.S. to refuse to trade with or engage in economic relations with other countries is nonsense. He is the furthest possible thing from a mercantilist. He is more of a free-trader than any of the other three remaining Republican presidential candidates.

Paul's position is clear: "Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage." This belief is a rarity in modern politics. Criticize it as dangerous if you wish. Call it foolish. Call it naive. Call it something accurate, but don't call it "isolationist."

You may think him an unelectable dogmatic kook. That is an opinion and you can have it. But when you describe actual policy, try not to make yourself look foolish. Use the actual meanings of words.

The U.S. Constitution applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. Check the text.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:30:00 +0000

The notion that the U.S. Constitution only protects U.S. citizens is palpably false. It is an indictment of our education system that any American could think such an outrageous thing.

The drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were educated men. They chose their words carefully. They debated over precise word choice. One can assume every word they chose was done with a purpose.

The Constitution and the first ten amendments distinguish between the concept of "people/persons" and the concept of "citizen." For example, Article I, Section 3, says "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States...".

A "person" is therefore different from a "citizen." Everyone is a person, but only some are citizens.

This distinction is seen again in Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." Again, you may be a person, but you can't be President unless you are also a citizen. The drafters of the Constitution knew when they wanted it to apply to people and when they wanted it to apply only to citizens.

The first two paragraphs of Article IV, Section 2, clearly distinguish between "citizen" and "person." It reads:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Therefore, only citizens are entitled to "privileges and immunities" but all persons charged with a crime who then cross state lines shall "be delivered up." It does not matter if you are a citizen or not if you are a fugitive. Of course that makes sense.

The point, however, is that the Constitution and its Amendments clearly distinguish between "citizen" and "persons." "Citizen" means those either born in the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) or naturalized. "Persons" and "people" mean everyone.

For instance, the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble...". The First Amendment therefore grants to all people the same protection against certain congressional action, regardless of citizenship status.

The Fourth Amendment, likewise, applies to the "people," and not just citizens. It reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...".

Likewish, the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, ... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused [not just citizens] shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The notion that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens is incorrect. It even applies to those in the country illegally. For instance, the government cannot keep an illegal alien locked up indefinitely. An undocumented worker will still get an attorney appointed to him if charged with a crime. I hope this little blog post helps alleviate that misconception.

In light of the War on Terror, the Patriot Act and the recently passed NDAA, among other legislation, it appears the Constitution doesn't even apply to citizens any longer.

And that is sad.

Are they "grants" or "subsidies?" Newspeak is so hard to understand sometimes.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:12:00 +0000

I am confused. (Not an unusual state for me, I realize). In today's Denver Post, Allison Sherry has an article on the potential for Colorado farmers to lose direct payments from the federal government. (See "Farms warm to subsidy cuts"). She writes:

Colorado farmers stand to lose millions of dollars a year in direct subsidy payments for corn, wheat and soybean crops as part of agriculture reform heading to the U.S. Senate in a couple of months.
...
Colorado received more than $4 billion in subsidies, including direct payments, from 1995 to 2010.

Why are payments to farmers "subsidies" and payments to solar energy companies "grants?" It's so hard to keep up with the changes in Newspeak.

They are both direct payments from the federal government to private entities. Of course, the federal government does not actually have this money. They borrow it. Sooner or later, the debt will be paid - one way or another.

No matter what you call it, this government borrowing to give money to preferred groups will come from the pockets of future generations. It is intergenerational theft.

It is time we call it what it really is: immoral.

The flawed, short old man isn't the answer. But his message is.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:07:00 +0000

Ron Paul's success in the Republican nomination process has very little to do with Ron Paul the candidate. It has everything to do with ideas. It has everything to do with a mission. After wandering in the big government political wilderness for over a century, Paul is leading us to the land of freedom promised in the Constitution. He probably won't make it there himself, but like Moses, he'll show it to us across the river. (OK, the Moses comparison is a bit much. I got carried away. Sue me.)

Paul would never be picked by central casting for the role of political leader. He's old. He's short. He's far from charismatic. He's far from perfect.

But those imperfections are of the man, not of the ideas. People are starting to realize that government, indeed, is not the answer. Free markets and voluntary action is the answer. Less government is a start. Unfortunately, neither half of the two-party duopoly has ever - ever! - made the federal government smaller.

Voting for the same-ol' same-ol' results in ..... more of the same. At the very least, Ron Paul is not more of the same. A libertarian philosophy may never win over a majority of voters. That makes it no less correct. But without someone spreading the message - even a flawed, short old man - we know for certain the philosophy will never win over a majority of voters.

And what if those that understand and believe in a constitutionally limited government actually vote for it? They might actually get it.

You want to throw away a vote? Keep voting like you have, America.

Santorum v. Reagan

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:01:00 +0000

"I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I don't think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution's all about. I don't think they have it right as to what our history is."

Rick Santorum

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

Ronald Reagan

The most important election ever? Nope. Not even the most important in the last four years.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 02:31:00 +0000

The 2012 presidential election is being called "The Most Important Election Ever!"

Wrong.

Even the election of 2008 was more important. Unfortunately the GOP gave us John McCain as the only viable option against the disaster that is Obama. And yet, four years later, it is the same group that is going to give us the only viable option against that same disaster.

Mitt Romney? Really? Mitt is McCain without the war resume.He's Bob Dole without the charisma.

If you ran a business and your hiring manager kept choosing poorly, would you let him keep making those decisions? If you did, whose fault would the next bad choice belong to?

If you keep hiring the same contractor to work on your house and each addition has a leaky roof, you get exactly what you deserve.

Mitt is pretty leaky.

NFL players don't get promises they'll start. Not even Tebow.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 01:56:00 +0000

I am curious. There has been a clamor from some, including radio talk show host Dan Caplis, for the Bronco organization to make a public statement endorsing Tim Tebow as starting quarterback for the foreseeable future.

Can someone point out to me where this has ever been done anywhere? Has Bill Belichick every said Tom Brady is the Patriots' quarterback for the foreseeable future? Did Tony Dungy ever make such a commitment to Peyton Manning? How about Sean Payton in New Orleans committing to Drew Brees beyond the next game?

I don't think it has happened. In the NFL, every job is open every week. If someone beat out Brady, Belichick would bench Brady in a second. There ain't much sentimentality in the NFL.

The 49ers traded Joe Montana when they thought Steve Young gave them a better chance to win games.

If Montana didn't have a guaranteed gig, Tebow ain't getting one either.

Another economic misconception

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:54:00 +0000

The Denver Post's Andy Vuong demonstrates a common misconception in his article "Tebow is money out of the pocket."

The misconception is that increased sales in one particular segment of the economy is a boost to the entire economy. For example, Vuong cites the case of

... 20-year-old part-time college student Hector Armendariz, [for whom] Tebow has meant an extra $25 a day for the past three weeks through sales of T-shirts and hoodies featuring his likeness.

That is certainly good news for Hector, but it is completely irrelevant to the overall status of the Denver economy. That extra $25 is money that would have been used elsewhere if not on Hector's merchandise. For (an admittedly over-simplistic, but still valid) example, Joe Customer has decided to buy a $25 t-shirt. Joe can spend the $25 at Spencer Gifts on a Chuck Norris t-shirt or buy a Tebow t-shirt from Hector. Either way, $25 is spent on a t-shirt. Why should we be happier for one t-shirt vendor over another?

The same principle applies to larger figures, as well:

Tom Clark, executive vice president of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp... said a home playoff game could add $5 million in spending in Denver, with some of it coming from visitors from outside the metro area because of the team's regional appeal.

At least Clark distinguishes money spent by locals from money spent by visitors. The local contribution toward that $5 million would be in the Denver economy whether or not the Broncos have a home playoff game. The balance would still be in the region, to be spent on movie tickets, symphony tickets or maybe even a book or two.

Corruption is easy.

noreply@blogger.com (David K Williams Jr) — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:39:00 +0000

Step one: raise lots of money for winning presidential candidate.
Step two: get lots of tax money back from winning presidential candidate.

Real life example: George Kaiser is a billionaire and campaign donation bundler for Obama; his "family foundation" owned 1/3 of Solyndra; Solyndra goes bankrupt after getting $528 million from Obama administration.

The more power the government has, the more it will give away in exchange in for political favors.

The notion that "getting money out of politics" will stop the corruption is well-intentioned and completely wrong. As long as the government has power to dole out favors, someone will be willing to bid for those favors. The more rules and regulations instituted to prevent this exchange of money for political largesse just means more lawyers and financial advisers get paid to find the loopholes.

More campaign finance rules discourage honest people from getting involved. No honest person wants to run afoul of regulations and subject themselves to government sanction. Dishonest people are not subject to the same concerns.

Campaign finance rules do nothing but make it harder for small groups and individuals to engage in the political process. They actually make more and more money necessary to participate, thereby defeating their purpose.

The only way to effectively limit corruption is to limit the power of the government to grant favors. The less they can dole out, the better.