|
|
Join Liberty on the Rocks and the Independence Institute as we celebrate School Choice Week to promote educational choice and excellence!
We will be showing the 9-part short film series Kids Aren’t Cars, which takes a deeper look into the state of public education in America, and the reasons why we are falling behind the rest of the world. The film highlights examples from Midwestern states and shows the impact organized labor and the assembly-line system has had on educating our children.
When: Thursday, January 26th from 6-8 pm
Where: Independence Institute | 727 E. 16th Avenue in Denver
What: ‘Kids Aren’t Cars’ movie night to celebrate School Choice Week
Reception starts at 6 pm, with the movie starting at 6:30 pm. The film will be followed by a brief discussion with the Independence Institute’s education scholars Ben DeGrow and Pam Benigno. There will also be light snacks available.
This event is FREE and open to the public – so please invite family and friends to help us celebrate school choice week!
To learn more about the movie and watch a trailer, check out the Kids Aren’t Cars website
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.
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.
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.
"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
Get ready to start the new year off right with Liberty on the Rocks happy hour at Choppers in Cherry Creek! Join fellow liberty enthusiasts as we gather to toast to liberty and freedom, while sharing ideas and strategies for winning the war of ideas in 2012 and beyond.
We will also be joined by special guests Stephen Bailey and Anders Ingemarson, who will be delivering brief talks discussing some of Ayn Rand’s novels as part of the national Free Books for Teachers Project.
When: Wednesday, January 4 from 6-9 pm
Where: Choppers Sports Grill | 80 S. Madison Street in Denver
What: Happy Hour + Discussions on Ayn Rand!
Stop by any time between 6 and 9 pm to grab a drink, enjoy great conversation, and make new liberty-loving friends in Denver!
Specials:
$5 Burger & Fries
$1 off Dry Dock pints, $3 off Dry Dock Pitchers
Ayn Rand Book Talks
Mr. Bailey will be talking about Ayn Rand’s Anthem. The main them will
be how Anthem, although written before, is a logical sequel to Atlas
Shrugged and illustrates one, non-political and non-economic, thread common
to all of Ayn Rand’s works.
Mr. Ingemarson’s topic will be “Friends and Foes of Atlas Shrugged.” Based
on personal experience, Anders will discuss different responses to the
novel, if there is a way to predict an individual’s reaction to reading the
book, and how to use Atlas in your activism.
Join Professor John Cochrane @ LOTR (RR) in January!
LOTR (Red Rocks) will be kicking-off their 2012 Austrian Economics
programming with an “intro” segment on January 16, featuring Dr. John P.
Cochran, former Dean of the Business School and a current professor of
economics at the Metropolitan State College of Denver. Dr. Cochran is a
Senior Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is the co-author of The
Hayek-Keynes Debate: Lessons for Current Business Cycle Research. Additional
details about this distinguished speaker may be found here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
Help Liberty on the Rocks (Denver) Grow. Donate Today!
Get Happy Hour Reminders!
|
