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 former Rep. 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.

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.

BEWARE THE BISCUIT

A hilarious article from The Times about Biscuits, and other deadly British institutions.

An estimated 25 million adults have been injured while eating during a tea or coffee break, with at least 500 landing themselves in hospital. Putting this into perspective, this makes having a biccie a more perilous activity than pot-holing, drag-racing, waterfall-punching, or auto-asphyxiation in a hotel room at 4am, off your face on minibar Bacardi Breezers.

For those who, now querulous, wish to keep their biscuit-risk to a minimum, it is useful to note that the Custard Cream is apparently the most dangerous biscuit, with a rigorously scientific-looking Biscuit Injury Threat Evaluation rating of 5.63. It’s practically a sandwich made of guns. The Jaffa Cake, meanwhile — you may be soothed to note — scores, in comparison, a mere 1.16; making it the safest biscuit to offer to a child, or a congenital idiot.

For the love of God, man, just put down the biscuit. You can thank me later.

That's Racist!

Political correctness gone loco:

Dozens of quangos and taxpayer-funded organisations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence.

Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and sexism are “whiter than white”, “gentleman’s agreement”, “black mark” and “right-hand man”.

So here I am, drinking a nice cup of black dark Joe gender neutral, color non-specific caffeine juice when, suddenly, I am outraged by even more insane political correctness.

*Note* If you don't know what quango means, it's because you're awesome American.

Programming Note

**Update--Fear not, vanguard of the people! Despite counterrevolutionary propaganda to the contrary, El Presidente will continue to provide bloggage and commentary on Colorado politics. For the time being, however, he'll be hanging out more at People's Press Collective. Your implacable leader does have a few other irons in the fire, so to speak, so watch out for that in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, take a look at EP's declaration of non-candidacy in 2010 and laugh.

Or he'll report you to the White House for acting "fishy."

---

SP will be on hiatus indefinitely.

In the meantime, check out the links below to stay up-to-date on the liberty movement in Colorado, and for all the latest political news and analysis.

People's Press Collective:



Liberty on the Rocks:



Complete Colorado:



Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0:



Face the State:



Clear the Bench Colorado:

Influential Blogger Not Seeking Office In 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Embargoed until 2089)
August 6, 2009

Underemployed Smartass Blogger Opts Out of GOP Senate Race

Independent, Maverick Hope’n’Changer Has Better Things To Do

(His Parents' Basement)—Pajama-clad chickenshit People’s Press Collective blogger and itinerant Independence Institute groupie El Presidente has, after careful consideration and extensive consultation, decided NOT to challenge Senator Who? in the 2010 election. He now joins an elite group of only three other individuals who have not tossed their hat into the GOP primary.

“After conducting a comprehensive state-wide listening campaign that consisted of a blue-ribbon panel comprised by his four Facebook fans and a guy named Larry, and a feeling that any multi-cellular organism could defeat an appointed Senator whose speech patterns are less interesting than 1980s animatronics at Disneyland, I have decided to take the decisive and bold path and not enter the race,” declared El Presidente. “Besides, what’s the point of splitting the primary vote 1,013,476 ways?”

Though he believed himself to be a formidable candidate despite having staged a failed 5th grade class coup, he had left the possibility of running for a democratically-elected state-wide office open until today. However, citing extensive familial responsibilities as a reclusive bachelor and noted misanthrope, El Presidente also concluded that he could not stomach the grueling campaign schedule required to build name brand recognition, nor the number of handshakes that were in store for him.

“Campaign events before noon? Yeah, riiiiiiight. Besides, I’d need a whole lot of Purell, and that is dangerous for our climate in this new energy economy,” remarked El Presidente.

Had he launched a formal Senate bid, El Presidente planned an extensive, scorched-earth campaign chock-full of disastrous launch stumblings, calculated missteps, unidentified geography in his ads, inexplicable verbal gaffes, annoying/antiquated/untimely/irrelevant press releases (like this one), a general lack of focus in his messaging, and a complete disregard for anything even remotely resembling a Republican principle.

“Socialism for everyone sounds so socialist itself, so I planned to burden the economy with even more government spending so that I could avoid any real, serious conversation and get down to the business of the people—getting myself reelected, and then surreptitiously switching parties. I believe in the 80-20 principle, 80% for me, 20% for all of you unwashed, gun-toting, God-fearing troglodytes who whine about ‘high taxes’ and ‘liberty.’ It’s not all about you or your liberty, it’s about me, your hypocritical elected official. You people make me sick,” concluded El Presidente.**

During the trial period, he spoke to several egregiously overpaid political hacks, faux-Internet gurus, and old-guard roadblocks who encouraged him to run.

“The superficiality of these GOP insiders is amazing, and I looked forward to their non-sensical advice and thoroughly deplorable backstabbing,” noted El Presidente. In addition, had he actually decided to have it bothways and mount a run before he ultimately decided against it, El Presidente articulated the need for a clear New Media strategy involving Web 2.0 tools that he hopes other GOP candidates will latch on to in their own meretricious efforts.

“The Democrats have the Gang of Four, the Colorado Model, and almost every elected position in the state. But we have Facebook and Twitter and the severely underfunded and generally disregarded conservative blogosphere on our side. Not that I’ve ever visited those or any other websites on that new-fangled “intarwebz” thingy,” argued El Presidente. “My college-aged anarcho-syndicalist commune, which doubled as my campaign war room, told me that multiple sockpuppets and an outrageously obvious and horrendously misspelled astroturfing campaign launched from my own IP using my personal email address would ensure me a grassroots following so far-reaching, that literally billions would join the cause. I crap you negative. After all, I know people, and am a mighty oak.” El Presidente’s entire cadre of earnest but unwitting supporters has subsequently been liquidated, following a judiciously unjust, farcical show trial.

In preparation for what could ultimately prove to be Colorado’s most expensive Senate race since the last most expensive Senate race and assuredly not as expensive as the next one, El Presidente’s fundraising efforts in the exploratory phase had yielded a staggering $0.57 cents, most of which came from a single donation from his parent’s couch.

“No candidate can seek funding from just one source. A great candidate needs resources from a large pool of donors of all political stripes, and I was able to bring both sides of the sofa together, by drawing support from both the right AND the left cushions,” boasted El Presidente. The response was phenomenal the past 45 quarters, and we even saw a generous amount of foreign backing in the form of Confederate war bonds and Zimbabwean currency. “Never too early to get in the race, nor build up a campaign war chest,” asserted El Presidente.

El Presidente’s nascent campaign drew endorsements from a wide variety of public groups, including “People with ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ Bumper Stickers On Their Cars” or PWDTOMBSOTC and the “Society for the Total Usurpation of Public Involvement in Democracy” also known as STUPID. “The STUPID socialists were some of my biggest and earliest supporters, but unfortunately, since they don’t believe in the free market, capitalism, or personal property, none of the STUPID bastards could give me any money,” lamented El Presidente.

While El Presidente has not endorsed any specific candidate in the GOP primary, he has identified a few potential frontrunners and personal favorites in the ridiculously overcrowded field.

“If I can get through 100 candidates an hour, 24/7, for the next 10 months, I might be able to have a grasp of the entire field, and issue my endorsement—or I’ll just withhold support and then note one week before the general election, as the Republican candidate heads for certain defeat, that I could have run a much better race and actually, you know, won the damn thing. Ahhh, the bitter taste of sour grapes, low expectations, and a sense of paid-my-dues entitlement,” quipped El Presidente. “I call on all Republicans running to make a commitment to do everything possible to piss off the base, irrevocably destroy the party, ostracize Libertarians and freedom-oriented independents, and empower Democrats for the next century or two with nasty, hyper-partisan, ad hominem attacks in the primary. Let’s circle the wagons once again and, in a show of party unity, fire in—that’s the ticket!”

El Presidente has scheduled a press non-availability at an undisclosed, undetermined location, as security concerns will only permit a few teleprompters, some stage plants (primarily Ficus), and a Gatorade stand. Only pre-screened softball questions submitted by a sycophantic and propagandistic media will be allowed, and generally ignored. Your cooperation isn’t appreciated, or even all that important to us. After all, you’re probably just a wide-eyed blogger with a covert agenda, and jeebus, why do we even bother . . .

For more information contact:
Yo Momma
c/o State GOP HQ
303-BITE-ME
soyunperdedor@republicanscantgettheirshitstraight.com

**Not actually elected, though you probably didn’t read that far anyway, so what does it matter?
Editing by MIM

A Note On Mobs

Ben DeGrow has an excellent overview and link roundup of the Democrats' attempt to paint tea party protesters and anti-ObamaCare advocates as an unruly mob.

No Climate Tax Pledge

Partial transcript:

Hello, I'm Senator Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma, and I am proud to be one of the hundreds of lawmakers on all levels of government to sign the Americans for Prosperity "No Climate Tax Pledge." This pledge states clearly that climate change legislation should not be used to fund a dramatic expansion in the size and scope of government. As I add my name to the list, I am also here to call on all those who oppose the largest tax increase in American history to join me in signing the pledge by going online to http://www.noclimatetax.com/.

I have worked tirelessly over the past ten years to expose cap-and-tax for what it really is: the largest tax increase in American history. I began by leading the opposition against Kyoto in 1997 and have successfully led the fight against the cap-and-trade tax in 2003, 2005 and most recently in 2008. Today as American consumers continue to face tough economic times, the last thing Washington should be doing is raising the price of gas at the pumps, energy in our homes, and the cost of food in our grocery stores.

We have a lot to do in the coming months to defeat cap-and-trade again, and hopefully this time, for good.

Only A Test

Barack Obama--Teleprompter In Chief

Brought to you by Republican Princess.

Economic Development . . . For No One

Government waste--often disguised by agencies with well-meaning titles like "Office of Economic Development"--is frequently cited as having at least a marginally positive effect on those it is intended to help. More often than not, however, that wasted taxpayer funding goes absolutely nowhere and benefits precisely NO ONE:

The Office of Economic Development (OED) was created by the General Assembly with the simple, if not obvious task of promoting economic development. But sometimes obvious and simple tasks don't always remain that way.

In 2008, the OED created a grant of $47,000 to spend on office space that was occupied by...no one.
. . .
The ACC was asked to market the unused space. However, when the unoccupied space was offered at market rates to other non-profits, the OED couldn't find any takers.

“This is a perfect example of how, when government dips into work outside their core activities, they are still insulated from having to make market decisions that affect their bottom line," said Dennis Polhill, senior fellow at the Independence Institute. "Some business would rather move than throw away $47,000, but when it's taxpayer money, what the heck?”

After all, it's only taxpayer money anyway . . .

**Update: 1200 In Colorado Springs; Fort Collins, Colorado Springs See Hundreds Rally Against ObamaCare, Outnumber Pro-Obama Factions

**Update 3--Media bias? Colorado Springs Gazette ignores the anti-ObamaCare rally completely

**Update 2--Americans for Prosperity has video and several more photos up from the Colorado Springs rally

**Update 1--Approximately 1000-1200 anti-ObamaCare rallyers showed up in Colorado Springs, easily eclipsing the incredible turnout in Denver yesterday (video); tons of photos from the rally; 9NEWS has more from Fort Collins

Continued from yesterday's overwhelmingly successful anti-ObamaCare rally in Denver:

Hundreds more in Colorado Springs rallying against government-run health care, where only a "handful" of ObamaCare supporters showed up--photos/video from the rally on the way.

NoCOPolitics attended the earlier Fort Collins rally as hundreds voiced their opposition against government-run health care, outnumbering pro-Obama supporters 3-1; slideshow of the rally is up at the Coloradoan:

Hundreds Attend Anti-Obama Care Rally In Denver

Hundreds (500-700) attended yesterday's anti-ObamaCare rally in Denver during the lunch hour.

**Update 8--Hundreds more in Colorado Springs rallying against government-run health care, where only a "handful" of ObamaCare supporters showed up

**Update 7--Hundreds attend rally against government-run health care in Fort Collins, outnumber pro-Obama supporters 3-1; slideshow of the rally is up

**Update 6--speaker highlights:







**Update 5--Joshua Sharf captured revealing pics of the decidedly underwhelmingly attended pro-Obama rally later in the day, featuring supporters sporting union-made signs and t-shirts; Face the State has an update on Michael the Hutt of ProgressNow doing a little projection of his own, Kim Jong-Il style; the geniuses at ColoradoPols can't count.

**Update 4--Instalanche, sweet! Thanks Glenn.

**Update 3--Face the State has a comprehensive report and a slideshow of the rally, and estimates that upwards of 700 attended.

**Update 2--Obama's supporters are staging their own rally at 6pm in Denver, and there is already a planned counterprotest:

What: Socialized Healthcare Counter-Protest

When: July 28, 2009 6:00 PM

Where: Colorado State Capitol Building
Colfax & Lincoln West Steps of the Capitol Bldg
Denver, CO 80203

The White House's own activist group "Organizing for America" is holding a rally in support of nationalized health care at the Colorado State Capitol this evening, July 28th. A coalition of 9/12 and Tea Party groups is banding together to form a counter-protest from 6pm to 7pm!

If you were unable to make the rally against socialized medicine at lunch today, this counter-protest is a way to make your voice heard and to let the politicians and the anti-liberty groups know we oppose what they are trying to do.

Because anti-liberty activists may very well try insult us or force confrontations with us, it is VERY important that we remain civil and professional - don't sink to their level!

Obama's astroturfers (unions/SEIU) vs. true grassroots, should be fun! Obama's union thugs supporters better hope for a larger turnout than their own counterprotest earlier today:


The large contingent of Obama Care supporters rally across the street.

**Update 1--Democrat Rep. Diana DeGette (CD 1), who represents Denver, puts forth the ObamaCare line:

Perhaps DeGette should take the time to listen to her constituents. And read the bill . . .

---

Denver Post:

"This is not the kind of health care change we want!" shouted Jeff Crank with Americans for Prosperity, which organized the rally. "We demand something different."

Instead, protestors advocated for tort reform to cut down on malpractice costs and making health insurance "portable" from job to job.

Crank said national health care reform proposals being debated in Congress call for rationing care. He told those at the rally to think of the hot dogs and T-shirts as liver transplants — "if we run out, we run out."

CBS4Denver had pre-rally coverage (video).

Photos are up (click to enlarge)--


Co-sponsored by the Independence Institute and Americans for Prosperity.


Sentiment was strongly against President Barack Obama's plan.


Ominous.


Rationing is a primary concern.


The posters were creative and not mass-produced.


Just a portion of the large crowd gathered, probably 500 or so.


Major media outlets were there as well.


Ari Armstrong of FreeColorado.com argued that government is responsible for getting health care into this mess in the first place.


Health care choice vs. government control.


But but but . . .


Where there are cameras, ProgressNow's paid hack Michael Huttner is sure to be weaseling his way through the crowd.


Jon Caldara, President of the Independence Institute, demands that elected officials, you know, actually read the bills they are expected to vote on.


The large contingent of Obama Care supporters rally across the street.


Winner for best use of props and allusion to pop culture of the day!


The rally wraps up and the crowd enjoys complimentary food.


Sums up the mood and message of the day.

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.

No Dominant GOP Choices Emerge: Frazier Beats Out Rivals; Penry Ties for Support, But McInnis Seen As Stronger

Approximately 600 people completed the July Colorado Political Temperature survey.

Open online from Thursday, July 9, 8:00 AM MDT, to Friday, July 17, 5:00 PM MDT, the survey gauged opinion on prominent policy issues, philosophy, and political dynamics; as well as candidate preference and assessment questions for five 2010 Colorado Republican primary races.

There are plenty of items of particular interest, but here are the top-line results. Crosstabs and other analysis will follow in the next week.

July 2009 Colorado's Political Temperature Results