Buck’s gaffe on the “wall of separation” is an error of articulation, not understanding

By Seth Richardson

Ken Buck needs a good speechwriter/minder to help him express himself properly and help him to avoid the deadly sound-bite syndrome that has brought many a politician low.

It’s probably too late now. Buck will either win in spite of his gaffes, or he’s already doomed to defeat. But he’s going to need help if he wins.

His latest mistake is not one of principle or belief, it’s simply a rhetorical failure to state his proposition clearly, an all-too-common occurrence in politics. Tony Blair, for all that he’s a Fabian Socialist and Progressive, was extremely attractive to voters because he was a brilliant and gifted rhetorician and orator.

It’s a pity that the United States hasn’t had a gifted orator since at least Reagan. Today’s crop of politicians, particularly the President, are oratorical nitwits largely incapable of expressing themselves clearly, much less convincingly. It’s been said that Obama is so incoherent and inept as a public speaker that he uses a teleprompter even in White House internal meetings.

Ken Buck, fine man and candidate that he is, suffers from this common political malady, though certainly not to the extent the President does. He could use some help in improving his oratorical skills.

Last year Buck said, “I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state. It is not written into the Constitution.” Thinking people know full well that what he meant is not what he said, but that’s not good enough for politics, where you must carefully say exactly what you mean in language that cannot be misinterpreted or misquoted.

Buck is correct that the notion of a “wall of separation” between church and state is not found in the Constitution. It’s a metaphor that Jefferson used in a communique with the Danbury Baptist Church in 1802. Even Supreme Court justices Potter Stewart and William Rehnquist have expressed exasperation at the insidious worming of this incomplete and misunderstood metaphor into our jurisprudence.

Of course, Progressives make good use of such rhetorical devices to forward the goal of “reinterpreting” the Constitution out of existence because it’s an impediment to elite rule of the lumpen proletariat, and mischaracterizing the statements of opponents to their advantage is an old, old technique of propaganda.

So, let’s complete the metaphor for a clearer understanding of the intent of the Founder who created it.

The common perception of the “wall of separation” is that it is a wall around religion that keeps religion from interacting with or affecting government. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth.

The correct application of the metaphor is that the “wall of separation between church and state” is a prison wall around government. The Establishment Clause is precisely like a prison wall built around government that prevents it from moving beyond it’s proper boundaries and keeps it away from the People and their religion. By the same token, a prison wall does not confine or limit the freedoms and liberties of the People, because they reside outside the enclosure.

To understand the metaphor, one must understand history, particular the religious and political history under which our Founders suffered. In 1534, King Henry the Eighth declared himself the supreme head of the Catholic Church in England, which lead to the formation of the Church of England. He did this because Pope Clement VII refused to annul the King’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn.

This lead, in Henry’s time and later, to persecution of Catholics and members of other religions who refused to acknowledge the King’s religious supremacy. Arrests and imprisonment were commonplace for “papists” and executions for treason were the order of the day. This persecution persisted, on and off, for centuries.

The term “Priest’s hole” describes hidden rooms and compartments found in many English homes of the period where closet-Catholics could hide a Catholic priest when the King’s religious enforcers came looking for apostates from the Anglican Church to imprison, torture, hang and behead.

Although the strict dictates of the Act of Supremacy enacted by Henry VIII were moderated over time, by the time of the American Revolution, religious freedom had become a significant issue in the Colonies, with the Anglican (Church of England) Church dominating the Colonies, frequently resulting in arrests of Baptists and members of other sects by government authorities for crimes like “preaching without a license.”

It is this historical context of domination of religion by a state-organized and authorized religion, where Anglican church authorities had substantial power to suppress free religious expression through collusion with the government, that lead the Founders to create the protections found in the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment clauses.

The purpose of the Free Exercise Clause was to protect religion against government intrusion, not to protect government against religious intrusion. And the Establishment Clause was intended to insure that government never attempted to take control of religion through state action, not prevent people from practicing their religion.

All of the constraints of the First Amendment (and every other Amendment) are aimed at fettering government to prevent it from exceeding it’s designated boundaries, and not at fettering individuals or their individual rights and freedoms.

This is what makes the “wall of separation” metaphor an apt one, but only if the metaphorical circle of the wall is completed, and the proper party is placed within the circle of confinement.

It is government that lies within the wall, subject to restraint and limited in its ability to interfere with the People. The People stand outside the wall, free to do as they please, free of government interference with their religious beliefs.

That is what Buck intended to say. It’s a pity that he wasn’t articulate enough to actually say that. Perhaps this will assist him in explaining his remarks between now and election day.

If he sees it.

© 2010 Altnews

Leaving a presumptively-innocent 15 year old in solitary confinement while awaiting trial is child abuse.

By Seth Richardson

Fifteen-year-old murder suspect John Caudle is being held in solitary confinement with little or no contact with the outside world. Charged as an adult in the murder of his parents last October, Caudle cannot be lodged with adult inmates at the Rio Grande County jail, and his social interactions are limited to occasional fifteen-minute visits with friends and four-hour-a-week meetings with his court-appointed guardian.

Attempts by his guardian to require the school district to provide mandatory education have been stone-walled by the school district, claiming that they are waiting for Caudle to “return from his mental health evaluation,” according to a story in the Denver Post on Monday, October 25, 2010.  Problem is, Caudle hasn’t gone anywhere, and sits in a jail cell, alone. The prosecution has resisted all attempts by his guardian to have him moved to a juvenile facility while awaiting trial, and the court has dragged its feet for a year. This is unacceptable.

Now, murdering one’s parents is a heinous crime, but it’s important, vitally important to note that Caudle is, at the moment, not guilty of the crime. He is a presumptively innocent teenager who has been accused of the crime. The evidence against him is compelling enough to justify holding him without bail, according to the law, but he is still innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.

What this means is that the Rio Grande County Sheriff, and the prosecutors, have a legal duty and obligation to respect Caudle’s civil rights, one of which is to receive a free education from the state. In fact, as another long article in the same edition of the Denver Post points out, Colorado law requires children to attend school, and they, and their parents, can be hauled into court and even jailed for truancy, which means missing more than four unexcused absences in a month, or more than 10 in a school year. So Caudle, through no fault of his own, is breaking the law by not attending school.

Moreover, holding a child in solitary confinement, if done by a parent, clearly qualifies as felony child neglect and abuse, and any parent doing this to a child would be arrested and jailed.

Well, it’s time to arrest and jail every single person who has contributed to, or has had knowledge of and a legal duty to report the ongoing abuse of John Caudle and failed to report it to child protective services. These heartless criminals need to be punished for abusing a child who has not yet been judged guilty in a court of law.

There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for this ongoing illegal abuse of a presumed-to-be innocent child. He cannot be punished without due process of law, but that’s exactly what’s happening.

Caudle’s legal guardian should immediately file for a Writ of Habeas Corpus before the United States Supreme Court alleging violation of Caudle’s constitutional rights under color of authority, charging every person involved who has failed to protect him while awaiting trial.

The presumption of innocence demands that those accused, but not convicted of a crime, no matter how heinous or inflammatory to the community, be treated with due respect for their constitutional rights, which in the case of Caudle include a right to social interaction and a public education, as well as freedom from solitary confinement and isolation that would under any other circumstances be considered felony child abuse.

© 2010 Altnews

Governor Moonbeam’s economic recovery plan ignores physics – you can’t get something from nothing.

By Seth Richardson

As if there were not enough reasons to hope that California breaks off and sinks into the ocean, the fact that Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown is ahead in the polls for Governor of California leads the pack.

If there was any doubt whatsoever that Brown is a brain-dead Progressive/Marxist zombie, it’s worth reviewing one of his most notorious “must…eat…brains” moment, which has him moving to Ludditeville and calling for universal Marxist welfare. Brown drooled this redistributionist rhetoric back in 1995 on his Pacifica radio show

“The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs. Jobs for every American is doomed to failure because of modern automation and production. We ought to recognize it and create an income-maintenance system so every single American has the dignity and the wherewithal for shelter, basic food, and medical care. I’m talking about welfare for all.”

Evidently the other zombies in California haven’t had their daily ration of brains, because supporting Brown is about as brain-dead as it can get.

Here’s something for the Progressive/Marxist zombies in California to ponder, if they’re able: You can’t get something from nothing. What that means is that California is losing jobs and businesses by the thousands, as non-zombies move their homes and business out of Zombiefornia so that they can have at least a small chance at realizing the American dream and achieving economic prosperity.

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once famously said, “The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Nowhere is this more true that Zombiefornia, where they are on the verge of eating each other’s brains because they’ve sucked the life out of the economy in their search for freebies.

Zombiefornia is the cautionary tale for the rest of the nation, and it’s time to quarantine it, so the infection doesn’t spread.

If the brain-dead of Zombiefornia want to elect Governor Moonbeam again, that’s fine with me, but for the love of God, let’s seal the border, and remember the Prime Directive of fighting zombies: Always double-tap, and alway, ALWAYS check the back seat…

© 2010 Altnews

Disgusting personal attacks on Ken Buck’s reputation by ProgressNow must be rejected by the voters

By Seth Richardson

The Progressives are in full-tilt panic mode right now, and their propaganda smear machine is overheating and is about to come apart at the seams. The repulsive attacks on Ken Buck over his decision not to prosecute an alleged sexual assault case four years ago prove once again that Progressives, in obedience to Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx, believe that the ends justify the means, and they will consequently stoop to any low, despicable, mendacious, slimy tactics they can think of to malign, libel and slander their political enemies.

One such Progressive, who goes by the pseudonym “Quidproquo” in the Gazette comments section has been parroting the ProgressNow Colorado slanders. The good news is that most other participants are resoundingly rejecting the specious arguments he makes and the propaganda he spews.

However, it’s important for people to understand exactly why the specious accusations that Buck refused to prosecute an “admitted rapist” are utterly false. The fact is that Ken Buck acted in accordance with the finest traditions of prosecutorial ethics in refusing to prosecute a case that was unwinnable.

Quidproquo asked the following somewhat rhetorical question in one of his/her diatribes: “… should the prosecutor decide whether a case is winnable, or should a judge and jury determine guilt or innocence?”

The answer is “both,” and it’s important for honest and upright citizens to understand how the judicial system operates as regards the filing of felony cases by the District Attorney, because this explains why Buck made the correct decision that he made back in 2006.

The canons of professional ethics for DA’s requires them to analyze all felony cases and determine, using their best professional judgment, whether the evidence in hand, if presented to a jury, would produce a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

This is one of several threshold tests of our criminal justice system that reduce the chance of judicial abuse or miscarriage of justice.

The system begins with the police finding probable cause (more likely than not) that the defendant committed the crime. Based upon this first threshold test, the police determine to arrest or not arrest. Their duty is to find (or not find) probable cause, and if they do, to bring the defendant before the bar of justice. Their role ends with the collection and analysis of evidence, which they present to the District Attorney.

The second threshold test is the judgment of the DA, who reviews the evidence collected by the police to determine not just if there is probable cause (more likely than not) to convict, but whether the admissible evidence he has is reasonably likely to lead a jury to conclude that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is the burden of proof that the DA must overcome at trial, not merely “more likely than not,” and so, as a matter of simple justice, legal ethics, and morality, the DA must believe that the evidence will prove his case, else he must not prosecute.

The purpose of these threshold tests is to make sure that miscarriages of justice do not occur, which includes subjecting persons to criminal trial, which is costly both in money, reputation and stress, based on flimsy evidence that has no chance of convincing a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That canon of professional ethics protects us all against overzealous prosecutors abusing their authority by subjecting presumptively innocent people to criminal trials without adequate evidence of guilt.

That’s something the Spanish Inquisition used to do, and it’s a good thing that our nation rejects such vigilante tactics.

If the DA finds sufficient admissible evidence, and brings the case, the judge and jury determine whether the evidence actually meets the prosecutorial burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is the third check-and-balance of the judicial system that helps to prevent innocent people from being abused by the government.

Quidproquo’s model would subject people to a criminal trial, and all the attendant expenses and stress, based on the unverified say-so of a purported victim who may have (and in this case clearly did have) motive, method and opportunity to engage in vindictive abuse of the judicial system as a scheme of revenge.

Since the defendant must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and since the purported victim’s own statements provide all manner of reasonable doubt about the veracity and accuracy of her allegations, Buck was compelled by the law, and by professional ethics, to decline prosecution.

Good for him. That’s what I want, expect and indeed demand of a District Attorney, for it is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be sent to prison.

The victim in this case may indeed be the victim of a heinous sexual assault, and that is unfortunate, but the requirements of fundamental justice dictate that in this country at least, people are presumed to be innocent until their guilt is proven, and for better or worse, the evidence in this case simply could not meet that standard.

My sympathies go out to the victim, but I for one will not convict her alleged attacker without sufficient evidence, nor will I condemn Ken Buck for adhering to the canons of professional ethics in declining to prosecute the case.

As for the Progressives, their tactics are backfiring even now, as is right and proper, and all right thinking and honorable citizens should resoundingly reject such smear campaigns and make their distaste for such tactics manifest at the election by repudiating the Democrat/Progressive agenda and candidates.

© 2010 Altnews

Doomsayers in government are only telling half-truths.

By Seth Richardson

Proposed Amendment 60 has bureaucrats and politicians in a tizzy, and the political propaganda machine is running full tilt in its attempts to instill fear and trepidation in the minds of the public. But that’s what politicians and government bureaucrats do whenever their powers is threatened with constraint. What else is new?

Whatever the true effects of the measure, the hyperbole being shoveled out of the government manure bin by politicians and bureaucrats who have a vested interest in keeping control of the public purse strings so that they can spend your money as they see fit, stinks to high heaven.

Let’s analyze Amendment 60 somewhat more objectively than the current crop of hysterical campaign ads does.

First, the amendment expressly requires the state to “strictly audit and enforce” compliance with the new law, and it allows any citizen to file suit to force such action by the state.

This appears to be a reaction to the recent shenanigans of the Colorado Supreme Court and the General Assembly in weaseling around the requirements of TABOR. It’s a rational and reasonable reaction to government arrogance and excess. We should always support mechanisms that facilitate strict oversight and accountability of our government.

Second, the amendment allows those who pay property taxes to vote on property taxes wherever they own property in Colorado. As it stands now, a property owner who holds land in several different counties is only allowed to vote in the county of his principle residence. This disenfranchises multiple-jurisdiction landowners by denying them the right to have a say on taxation of their property, and that is manifestly unfair, particularly when it comes to ranchers and farmers who may have large land holdings, and who therefore pay a larger proportion of property taxes.

I see no problem with this part of the Amendment. It’s only fair that those who pay the taxes be given the opportunity to vote on them as TABOR requires. To allow non-property owners in a jurisdiction to vote on how to tax absentee property owners is patently unfair and undemocratic.

Third, it authorizes the taxpayers of the jurisdiction to petition a property tax lowering measure directly onto the ballot. This provides another level of entirely democratic control over government excess. If a majority of property owners in a jurisdiction believe their property tax is too high, why shouldn’t their vote prevail? It’s their property and their money, after all.

Fourth, it makes “enterprises and authorities” subject to property tax, and would lower tax rates in proportion to the revenue generated by such taxes.

The first thing to understand about government-owned “enterprises” and “authorities” (like the E470 highway toll authority) is that they were NOT created to foster efficiencies and to run government “more efficiently” as is claimed. The real reason that such pseudo-private entities exist is entirely to evade the restrictions of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. They exist for no other reason, and don’t believe anyone who tries to convince you otherwise.

The purpose of the Colorado Springs Utilities Enterprise, for example, is to legally isolate the Utilities from having to comply with TABOR, and to give it independent and largely unaccountable authority to set utility rates as it pleases, even if that results in overcharging ratepayers to generate general fund revenues that the City of Colorado Springs would otherwise have to ask permission of the voters to collect.

The best course of action is to revoke the enterprise authority of the City Council and eliminate all city-owned enterprises entirely, but short of that, Amendment 60 will rip away part of the facade and truly make such enterprises pay their own way and c0mpete on a level playing field with private enterprise. Who knows, if forced to truly compete, we may find that it’s cheaper to sell the Utilities back to private enterprise.

You see, the fiction is that such enterprises are “businesses” that are supposed to utilize the free market to create efficiencies and lower costs for their owners, the People. But they enjoy an unfair advantage over private businesses because they are exempt from property tax, which means that these supposed “businesses” aren’t competing fairly and aren’t carrying their load when it comes to supporting the community.

Traditional city-owned utilities are tax-exempt because it makes no sense for the government to tax itself, and constitutional principles prohibit one government entity from taxing another government entity. This makes sense when the utility is operated as a public convenience intended to keep rates as low as is possible. That was the intent of the voters of Colorado Springs when they purchased the Utilities from private ownership decades ago. But that’s not now the Utilities operates today. Today, the Utilities Enterprise sets its rates to achieve the goals of the Utilities Board, which is the City Council, and which include generating substantial excess revenue that is funneled to the general fund.

So, the Amendment simply calls for “enterprises” and “authorities” that are supposedly operating as free-market business entities to be treated as free-market business entities, which means paying property taxes. No problem there.

Fifth, for the above reasons, the amendment prohibits enterprises from levying mandatory fees or taxes on property. This is consistent with the claim that such enterprises are businesses, not government agencies. Private for-profit businesses do not and must not have taxing authority, ever. If a private state-owned enterprise has independent property taxing/fee levying authority while being immune from the requirements of TABOR, all manner of mischief is possible.

If “enterprises” and “authorities” want to have the freedoms of the free market, then they need to operate under the same legal regimen as any other private, free-market business and not be given either TABOR immunity or competitive advantage. They need to face the same risks of economic failure and bankruptcy as any other business does if it does not provide a necessary service or product or does not operate efficiently.

Sixth, the amendment states that all property tax levies expire every ten years. This is perfectly reasonable and rational. There is no reason why we should grant unlimited, eternal taxing power to government, and “sunset” laws ensure that government must regularly come to the voters and justify their tax policies and ask that they be ratified. Ten years is plenty long enough for any tax to be collected without a review and vote of the people.

Seventh, the amendment requires “non-college” school districts to cut in half that part of their 2011 property tax revenue that is not being used to pay debt over a period of nine years. This means a gradual nine-step reduction in tax revenues to half of 2011 levels, but no reduction in tax revenues being used to pay already incurred debt, particularly bonded debt. The state is required to pick up the slack in funding each year.

This is by far the most contentious provision, and objectors wildly claim that it will somehow bankrupt the state by consuming all state tax revenues for education, leaving nothing for anything else.

This is hyperbolic propaganda of the worst sort, and here’s why: Absolutely nothing in this or any other ballot issue prevents the State of Colorado from putting a measure on the ballot to impose a uniform state-wide, state-imposed tax other than a property tax to replace the revenues now generated by each individual school district’s property taxation powers.

Let me repeat myself: The state is fully empowered to impose a tax to provide for the revenues required by this measure. The only thing inhibiting this power is TABOR, and all that means is that the state has to come to the voters, hat in hand, explain why the state needs the money and convince the voters to approve the new tax.

And that’s what nobody in the opposition camp will ever tell you.

They will trumpet the projected losses of revenue and wail and moan about destroying the economy and infrastructure of the state by shifting all state revenues to cover the gap in school funding caused by Amendment 60. But they will never, ever tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, which is that if our schools need funding, or our infrastructure needs funding, or anything else state government wants or needs to do requires funding, all the General Assembly has to do is be open, honest and forthright and ask us to approve a new tax by complying with TABOR. But politicians don’t like having to come begging to the people, because they are by their very nature arrogant elitists who think they know better than the people what’s good for them, so they will lie and perpetrate propaganda and half-truths in a desperate attempt to maintain their power and control.

And those lies and half-truths are the very reason that Amendment 60 is on the ballot, and it’s why you should vote for it and put the politicians and bureaucrats back in their proper place, as our public servants, not our masters.

I’m happy to pay taxes to support schools or other worthy, necessary state expenditures, but I’m not going to agree to let the General Assembly or anybody else decide how much to tax me without first asking my permission, and I’m done putting up with politicians abusing their authority to divert funds from needs approved by the people to their own favorite pork projects.

Let’s make them ask for our money, as TABOR requires, and let’s demand they spend it as they promised they would. That’s why we put TABOR in the Constitution in the first place.

© 2010 Altnews

Courage is required to maintain a civilized society

By Seth Richardson

Tucked away on an inside page of Saturday’s Gazette was an AP story about the kind of heroism that made this nation the best place on earth. When a deranged man began shooting at a group of children on a school playground in the San Diego suburb of Carlsbad, as many as half a dozen ordinary, unarmed citizens responded just like the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 did on September 11, 2001.

There was no time to plan, no “let’s roll” agreement, these ordinary heroes reacted instinctively, dropped what they were doing and ran full-tilt at the gunman, heedless of their own lives, in order to save the children.

Some of the heroes are unidentified, but Scott Chandler, Carlos Partida and Terry Lynn were identified in the story as having rushed to the defense of the children. I hope we eventually find out the names of everyone who did their duty as civilized human beings, so we can properly reward them for their courage.

It annoys me that this story was relegated to page A8 of the Gazette. It should have been front-page news in every newspaper in the nation. We need heroes right now. As a nation we need to recover the honor and spirit of personal sacrifice and courage that these men exemplify. We need to celebrate them and honor them and encourage our children to be like them.

Heroes made our nation great. They keep our nation great. Our heroes in uniform do it every day. But as important to our national pride as our honoring of our soldiers is recognition of those civilians who risk their lives without a thought to save others.

This includes firefighters, police officers, paramedics, and volunteers in rescue groups nationwide who do the hard work of saving others without thought of risk or reward.

In these times of national distress, when we feel at odds with one another, when we are polarized by political and economic conditions, as we turn in to ourselves in our struggle just to get by, we need to find common cause to celebrate and come together as a people, and this display of courage is just such an event.

Let us not become so jaded and self-centered that the heroism of unarmed civilians rushing an armed man to save others becomes a page eight story.

Make it a banner headline and honor those men with a ticker-tape parade through downtown San Diego, for what they did is as deserving of recognition and honor as walking on the surface of the moon.

© 2010 Altnews