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

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Reject failure. Envision Success. Don't quit.

A.  Reject failure.

"We live in a two party system! We have to work within it!"

That's exactly what Wall Street, Big Agribusiness, Big Pharma, Big Government Contractors, Big Insurance and all other cronyist corporatist rent-seekers want you to believe.

It matters not if Democrats or Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives or the Senate. Wall Street, Big Agribusiness, Big Pharma, Big Government Contractors, Big Insurance and the other corporatist rent-seekers get paid regardless.

I am embarrassed when I hear any liberty minded person embrace the "two-party system" as a physical inevitability, as if it were Newton's Fourth Law. Liberty minded people proudly embrace and admire revolutionaries who fought the biggest military in the world... and won. Liberty minded people proudly embrace and admire revolutionaries that fought, killed and died to defeat a political system that oppressed them.

Then these same liberty minded people dismiss out-of-hand the mere notion that defeating a two-party duopoly that perpetuates an ever-growing leviathan as "impossible." What American revolutionaries did was nigh on impossible. Changing a political system is merely hard. Let's adopt that revolutionary attitude. Let's drop the timid meekness of impossibility. You think it is impossible? Then it is.

The first step in changing the status quo? Quit accepting it as inevitable. Reject the notion that it is an impenetrable bulwark that can not be breached. Admit it is broken and must be thrown out and replaced.

Quit enabling the behavior we want to stop. Quit telling yourself, "this time, it will be different." We pity abused spouses that keep taking back their abuser. How many more times will you accept being lied to? How much more abuse will you take?

It is shameful when liberty minded people - in the name of liberty - accept the system that oppresses them.  If the GOP nominates a big government candidate, what do they tell you? "Vote for the Big Government Republican," whose beliefs you do not share, "or you are just helping the Big Government Democrat!" Where else in your life would you accept such a Hobson's choice?

I submit nowhere. Yet we have been indoctrinated into thinking that two bad choices are inevitable. That nothing can be done. To just accept it. Lie back and enjoy it. There is nothing you can do.

As long as people believe that there is nothing that can be done... there isn't.

Do not accept tripe just because it's not offal. Do not accept losing a pinkie just because it's not a thumb. If you are told, "well, those are the only choices, so choose!" Say "No! No more! I will not choose just because that's the way we've always done it! I will suffer, I will fight, I will sacrifice, but I will not voluntarily partake in a system that does not serve me!"

B. Envision success.

Once we refuse to participate in a system that rewards cronyism at the expense of liberty, then what?

I do not know. Not exactly. But John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and our other revolutionary heroes did not know exactly what they were going to do once they defeated the British. The first attempt, The Articles of Confederation, failed.

But they knew they had to throw off their shackles. They knew they wanted liberty. That's a good start for us, as well.

The first step in fixing a problem is to admit there is a problem. Then we can start coming up with alternatives.

I do, however, have some suggestions. One suggestion is to question plurality voting. Plurality voting is where each voter can pick one candidate to support, regardless of the number of people running. The candidate with the most votes, a plurality, wins. A majority is not needed. The winner frequently is opposed by a majority. What sense does that make?

63% of the electorate could vote against you, and you are the victor. Stupid, right? Yes, it is stupid. Yet we blithely accept it as "the way it is."

I am not making this up. Steve Hogan, the newly elected Mayor of Aurora, was rejected by 63% of the electorate, yet won. It is nonsense. Is it not reasonable to question such a system?

Let's look at the 2011 Aurora mayoral election results:


Steve Hogan 37.5% (13,498)
Ryan L. Frazier 30.2% (10,856)
Jude Sandvall 14.5% (5,244)
Debbie Stafford 11.4% (4,107)
Sheilah Thomas Davis 3.5% (1,291)
Barbara J Yamrick  2.5% (924)


For the sake of argument, let's assume that the 63% of voters whom voted for someone else hated Hogan. (Hogan is probably a wonderful person and a great mayor. I use his election for illustration only). Each of them would have voted for any of the five other candidates before they voted for Hogan. We really have a perverse result, don't we?

There are many ways to avoid this perversion. Some of them are:

Score voting - Voters gives each candidate a score from 1-5. (Or 1-10 or 12-68, the range is irrelevant.) In our example above, 63% of voters would have given Hogan a "1," the lowest possible score. He would have lost - and the voice of the voters would be more accurately reflected.

Approval voting - Voters look at each candidate independently and decide if they approve of that candidate or not. If they approve, they vote "yes." If they disapprove, they vote "no." The candidate with the most approval votes wins. Once again, 63% of the voters would have disapproved of Hogan and he would not have won. The voice of the voters would be more accurately reflected.

Other forms of voting exist, as well. Our slavish devotion to an absurd voting method, plurality voting, is based on nothing but tradition. Nothing. It is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is not in the Colorado Constitution. It is statutory. It can be changed by the state legislature.

But like Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, people are frightened and confused by anything new.

I highly recommend "Gaming the Vote" by William Poundstone as a great nonpartisan resource on alternative voting methods.

So why do we use plurality voting? Perhaps because it is easier for the corporatist rent-seekers to control. In partisan races, third party candidates have nigh on zero chance with plurality voting. That just leaves two traditionally viable choices. It is far easier to tell the public that they must vote for one candidate over another candidate or horrible things will happen. The rent-seekers, however, don't really care who wins, as long as it is one of the two.

As a result, government gets bigger, corporatists get their money, and voters think they have a real choice between two very different candidates. (And on abortion, immigration, homosexuality and other hot-button issues voters care about, they do differ. But neither will stop the corporatism. And that's all the corporatists care about).

But what if voters could score, or approve of, 10 different candidates? It is much more likely one of those ten would buck the corporatist system. That is against the interest of those in power.

It is, however, in your interest.

C. Don't quit.

Just give it some consideration. Our current system has failed to protect individual liberty. It has allowed the Constitution to become a mere suggestion. I know many liberty minded  people hope to change the system from within. I wish you all the best.

It just appears to me, however, that such hope is misguided. For instance, if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, our choice for President will be between two people whom believe in government run healthcare. Do you accept those two choices? Or do you believe defeating Obama is more important than limited government?  I grant we will be marginally better off with Romney than with Obama. Marginally.

But just looking at 2012 is shortsighted. It is exactly what the corporatists want us to do. If they can keep us looking ahead no more than the next election, the two-party duopoly will never end. We'll have great arguments between choosing Corporatist A or Corporatist B. And Corporatism wins.

We have to look at the next hundred years, not just the next ten months.

Dropping plurality voting is relatively painless. It is a start. It's not the only one. But it is something.

But like Andy Dufresne slowly scraping away at his jail cell, year after year, one tiny bit at a time, freedom won't come quickly. And we'll have to crawl through hundreds of yards of vile smelling foulness we can't even imagine.

But freedom is worth it. Isn't it?

Ignorant epithets should not be illegal - just condemned.

English Premier League soccer star John Terry has been accused of making racially abusive statements toward an opponent.

If he did it, (it is my understanding that there is audio or other "smoking gun" evidence), he needs our ostracism. He needs to be fined by the league. He needs to be suspended from playing games. He needs to lose endorsements. He needs to lose friends. He needs to lose respect.

He does not need to face criminal prosecution. But, indeed, he does. British prosecutors have charged Terry with a "racially aggravated public order offense." Translating the Orwellian Newspeak into English, he has been criminally charged with name-calling.

I am thankful the First Amendment protects Americans from such criminal prosecution (at least for now). The British prosecution, however, is symptomatic of a pervasive belief in this country that all problems must be addressed by the government. Name-calling, especially of the most vile kind, must be condemned. It does not follow that it must be criminalized.

Prosecution for name-calling, no matter how vile, is a dangerous precedent. Where does it end?

==== postscript:

Here is the pertinent language of the statute at issue:

Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Public Order Act of 1986, Chapter 64

Thus, "a person is guilty ... if he..... uses ... insulting words... within the hearing .... of a person likely to be caused .... distress therby."

Can you imagine trying to enforce such a statute at a Yankees' game? Or a political convention?

Neither tort reform nor the "War on Drugs" trump the Tenth Amendment

It is de rigueur for some politicians to declare themselves believers in constitutionally limited government.

It seems this belief is limited, all too often, when the principles of constitutionally limited government conflict with something they believe to be a "great idea."  Apparently "great ideas" trump the constitution. 

Many Republicans are proponents of tort reform. They believe frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost of doing business and that capping damages in civil lawsuits is a great idea.

There is such a bill pending in Congress. It would

"...put a three-year statute of limitations on medical lawsuits, cap non-economic damages at $250,000, and limit punitive damages to $250,000 or twice the economic damages, whichever is greater. It would apply to lawsuits in federal and state courts..."

Apparently this is such a great idea it trumps the Constitution. 

Nowhere among the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8 is Congress given the authority to tell states how to run their civil justice systems. To argue that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to do so is a purely progressive notion. It is a repudiation of the Tenth Amendment. It is  repudiation of a constitutionally limited government. 

Yet it is Republicans, the party that proclaims itself the "limited government" party, that is behind this bill.

Those Republicans in favor of this bill believe tort reform trumps the Constitution.

They either do not understand what they are doing or they have very malleable principles.

Likewise, any congressperson proclaiming to be a believer in the Tenth Amendment should be working to defund the DEA's effort to crack down on medical marijuana providers in states that have legalized the plant for such use.  To the extent marijuana is planted, cultivated, harvested, sold and consumed entirely within a state, one cannot be consistent and support both the DEA enforcement of these federal laws and the Tenth Amendment. The federal government has zero legitimate authority to enforce federal laws against such medical marijuana. (Yes, I know the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to the contrary. However, the Supreme Court can declare the sun is the moon, but it does not make it so.)

The current conflict between the DEA and state law presents an excellent opportunity for states to assert their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, for example, should tell the federal government that enforcement of federal marijuana laws in Colorado is ultra vires and msut be stopped. If the feds persist, the federal agents acting unconstitutionally should be arrested by local or state law enforcement. 

Of course, such action in Colorado would require not only a principled belief in the Constitution, it requires balls. Sadly, both are entirely lacking among state officials.

Three things beyond my meager ability to understand...

1. Quantum physics.

2. Women.

3. Paying $250,000 to a firm to provide a list of potential football coaches.

Denver Post sports writer Chris Dempsey reports that Colorado State University Athletic Director Jack Graham fired football coach Steve Fairchild. CSU now needs a coach.. To that end Dempsey reports that

Graham has enlisted the help of the executive search firm Spencer Stuart to help identify candidates. At a price tag of $250,000, the firm is being charged with drafting a list in the neighborhood of '60 to 70' initial candidates.

Wow. Just wow.

I understand how space bends and why women, well, do anything better than I understand that expenditure.

If the government does it, it will be either substandard, too expensive, or both.

The government built a school for $18.9 million. They used it one year. Now it is closed because it was built so poorly.

The money is gone. The building is useless.

... and some people want the government to take over your health care, too.

The Non-sequitur of the Week Award goes to David Sirota!

BlueCarp presents David Sirota with the "Non-sequitur of the Week" award!

In his Denver Post column today, Sirota says "we've imported imported the developing world's lax regulatory standards and, thus, its lower product quality."

Uh... what?

More government regulation equals higher product quality? With this entry in the non-sequitur competition, Sirota places himself in serious competition for the Non-sequitur of the Year award. Congratulations!

Sirota is certainly devout in his worship of the state and his belief there is no problem the government can not solve. For some reason, however, he believes that the individuals that comprise the body of government regulators is somehow more virtuous than the individuals that comprise the body of manufacturers.