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:
**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 . . .
"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."
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.
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.
We have to admit we were also impressed with the speed Sen. Jim Imhofe's office had this video packaged and distributed through a wide viral network--all the way down to our own community talking-point beacons. Clearly they're getting better at this. The problem is that, as the Post's Lynn Bartels correctly points out, what these guys are claiming Ritter said...isn't what he said at all. In fact, reading what Ritter actually said makes what the Republicans claim he said look, well, spun beyond recognition.
Of course Ritter never answered the question, so exactly who is spinning?For many of us outside the Beltway, the perception (and the reality) is that the "insiders" on the Hill don't get new media, blogging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. For every rule, however, there is an exception, and in this instance a very good example of how Republicans can use new media to challenge Democrats on any number of issues, including our own Gov. Bill Ritter on his support for the Waxman-Markey bill--from Lynn Bartels at the Denver Post (apologies for a lack of link earlier):
A Republican activist who heckled Democratic Senate candidate Tom Strickland during his 2002 run helped highlight the questions that made Gov. Bill Ritter squirm at a hearing this week in Washington.
Matt Dempsey, 30, is the communications director for Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which Ritter testified before on Tuesday.
In 2002, Dempsey worked for U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard's re-election campaign, often hollering out anti-Strickland slogans through a bullhorn at various political events. Dempsey's arrest just 10 days before the election went all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, Dempsey laughed when asked if he had a role in the Ritter hearing.
"Well, a little," he said, adding, "But I don't use a bullhorn anymore."
Now Dempsey has YouTube, a blog linked numerous times by Drudge, and a national audience.
Releasing video and digital press releases to blogs as-it-happens and not waiting for the MSM to garble the story is the best way to move the message on offense, instead of always playing catch-up, and Dempsey has proven that this new model works:
Dempsey also released an exchange between Ritter and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., over the bill, known as Waxman-Markey, after its Democratic sponsors.
Critics say the bill is a tax increase, and in Colorado it would cripple oil shale development and increase costs for farmers.
With that in mind, Inhofe asked of Ritter, "Are you here supporting Waxman-Markey today?"
"I support a national energy policy that's married to a national climate policy that gets at these goals that we have for greenhouse gas reductions," the governor said. "And I believe that if you do that, that there will some vehicle that may not look exactly like Waxman-Markey, particularly after the Senate finishes its work.
"But I very much support climate legislation that is joined with a national energy policy to get us to the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that are set for 2050."
Republicans have had success employing "new media," including YouTube, the Senate website and a blog.
The headline over the Denver Post story Wednesday read "Ritter attracts negative energy in D.C. hearing."
Milton Friedman Remembered: Friedman Legacy For Freedom Lunch
FYI:
The Independence Institute invites you to celebrate the legacy and ideas of Milton Friedman with us at lunch July 31, 2009, on what would have been his 97th birthday. We are proud to present Dr. Barry Poulson, Professor of Economics at the University of Colorado and Senior Fellow at Independence, as our guest speaker. To honor the impact Friedman has had on our society, and to help clarify his moral framework for freedom and free enterprise, we will celebrate the Friedman Legacy for Freedom in partnership with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Space is limited, so reservations will be made on a first come, first serve basis. Please RSVP to Mary at 303-279-6536.
Date: Friday, July 31, 2009 Time: 12:00pm - 1:30pm Location: The Irish Snug Street: 1201 E. Colfax City/Town: Denver, CO Cost: Free!
Costly Green Jobs--The Pueblo Example; Gov. Ritter Refuses To Endorse Waxman-Markey
In Pueblo, Colorado 450 new "green" jobs cost $32 million, or around $71,000 per job:
Here is the poster used in the video above:
During today’s Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, Gov Bill Ritter refused to endorse the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade global warming bill recently passed through the House of Representatives:
"Based on the widespread public backlash against the Waxman-Markey bill, I am not surprised that Gov. Ritter refused to endorse the bill," Sen. Inhofe said. "And if you read the testimony of the majority witnesses, Waxman-Markey is nowhere to be found. That's because this bill is the largest tax increase in American history, and they want nothing to do with it."
Ryan Frazier To Make Senate Run Official In Coming Weeks
From a press release this afternoon (no link yet):
“In a little over two months, we undertook efforts to weigh support for our positive and forward-looking vision. Since that time, we have gained momentum from people responding to our direction because they are looking for positive change. A New Way Forward is resonating with families and small businesses across Colorado and across party lines.
Our campaign is built on ideas, not personalities or tired insider politics, and will surge ahead as we meet more people and offer better solutions. Because of the early support and enthusiasm we’ve generated during past two months, I intend to make an announcement on my official candidacy in the weeks ahead. My family and I are grateful for the enthusiasm of hundreds of new volunteers and a promising financial start towards building a strong and effective campaign,” said Frazier.
Polling Colorado: Taking Colorado's Political Temperature July 2009
Do you think that Colorado's Supreme Court is, on balance, too partisan?
Are TEA Parties an effective method of voicing opinions on the size of government and taxation?
Is Health Care reform, also known as “single payer” program, on balance a good idea?
Do you dislike party labels?
How about the primary race for Colorado Governor? Are you amazed by Maes? Should Ritter move over for McInnis? Or is Penry your pick?
Same for US Senate--Is Wiens a winner? Are you a Frazier fanatic? Team Tidwell? Backing Buck?
Let us know--Help Reveal Colorado’s Political Temperature!
It’s the middle of the summer. The limelight surrounding Colorado politics is hazy. Blogs like this one experience a yawn in their already modest traffic. It’s time for something new to talk about. And if you can’t report the news or comment the news, it’s time to make a little news. And time to take the online temperature of Colorado political activists about the leading issues and candidates of the day — in our state and nationwide.
Ben DeGrow and I have commissioned and fashioned a survey that we hope you will take 10 minutes or so to complete — especially if you’re from Colorado. We didn’t want to make another run-of-the-mill quick-hit poll. We want to take it a little more in-depth.
Your opinion counts. Take a few moments to make it happen. Not only show your support for candidates, but also let us know where you stand on key issues and give us some honest prognostication about the 2010 elections. The survey won’t be there forever, only until next Friday, July 17, 5 PM local Mountain time . . . Thanks for participating! We’ll get back to you with the results soon. Stay tuned.
Original press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 9, 2009
Time to Take Colorado's Political Temperature Right-Leaning Bloggers Want to Know Where YOU Stand!
Two of Colorado's most established and respected conservative voices in the political blogosphere invite the state's political observers and activists to share their opinions in an online survey to shed light on current state and national issues, candidates, and trends. The survey takes about 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
“This isn't your run-of-the-mill, quick-click, random straw poll. We have created a user-friendly survey that goes a little more in-depth,” said Michael Sandoval, also known as El Presidente, of the blog Slapstick Politics (http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com). “With enough people adding their two cents, we may gain some useful insights into the state of play for some major races heading into 2010.”
Recipients are invited not only to take the survey, but also to pass it on to anyone they know who might appreciate the opportunity. Only one vote per computer or unique IP will be allowed to help ensure accuracy.
“We hope to hear from as many Coloradans as possible who pay attention to the political scene—the movers and shakers at all levels, anyone who has opinions and insights and cares about the future of our great state and country,” said Ben DeGrow of the blog Mount Virtus (http://bendegrow.com). “Besides, some kind of fresh online news has to break us out of these summer doldrums and give us a little hope.”
The survey will be open until Friday, July 17, 5 PM local time. The survey is not affiliated with any political candidate, political party organization, or any third-party entity.
Sandoval and DeGrow are both members of the Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0 (http://rma2.blogspot.com) and the People's Press Collective (http://peoplespresscollective.org), informal networks of Right-leaning, pro-liberty new media activists in Colorado. Poll editing graciously provided by Mary Ila MacFarlane.
Contact: Michael Sandoval, tabascoii-at-gmail.com Ben DeGrow, bendegrow-at-gmail.com
Taking Colorado's Political Temperature--July 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 9, 2009
Time to Take Colorado's Political Temperature Right-Leaning Bloggers Want to Know Where YOU Stand!
Two of Colorado's most established and respected conservative voices in the political blogosphere invite the state's political observers and activists to share their opinions in an online survey to shed light on current state and national issues, candidates, and trends. The survey takes about 10 to 15 minutes to complete.
“This isn't your run-of-the-mill, quick-click, random straw poll. We have created a user-friendly survey that goes a little more in-depth,” said Michael Sandoval, also known as El Presidente, of the blog Slapstick Politics (http://slapstickpolitics.blogspot.com). “With enough people adding their two cents, we may gain some useful insights into the state of play for some major races heading into 2010.”
Recipients are invited not only to take the survey, but also to pass it on to anyone they know who might appreciate the opportunity. Only one vote per computer or unique IP will be allowed to help ensure accuracy.
“We hope to hear from as many Coloradans as possible who pay attention to the political scene—the movers and shakers at all levels, anyone who has opinions and insights and cares about the future of our great state and country,” said Ben DeGrow of the blog Mount Virtus (http://bendegrow.com). “Besides, some kind of fresh online news has to break us out of these summer doldrums and give us a little hope.”
The survey will be open until Friday, July 17, 5 PM local time. The survey is not affiliated with any political candidate, political party organization, or any third-party entity.
Sandoval and DeGrow are both members of the Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0 (http://rma2.blogspot.com) and the People's Press Collective (http://peoplespresscollective.org), informal networks of Right-leaning, pro-liberty new media activists in Colorado. Poll editing graciously provided by Mary Ila MacFarlane.
Contact: Michael Sandoval, tabascoii-at-gmail.com Ben DeGrow, bendegrow-at-gmail.com
"It’s no surprise that during today’s G8 meeting, China, India and other developing nations refused to accept mandatory emissions controls on their economies," Senator Inhofe said. "Without participation from China and India, anything we do here at home would impose burdensome costs on consumers in the form of higher electricity, gas, and food prices, all for no climate gain. Unless supporters of cap-and-trade legislation can develop a plan to convince China and India to make meaningful emissions reductions on par with the United States, no such bill will pass the U.S. Senate."
EPA Administrator Jackson appeared before the EPW Committee on Tuesday and confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. "I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels," Administrator Jackson said.
When asked if there would be an appeal, Churchill's attorney David Lane said in an afternoon press conference, "Absolutely."
"It sends a message to the public, which is: 'Oh jury verdicts, who cares?' You know?" Lane said. "I've said, you know the Constitution is only as strong as those charged with protecting it, and unfortunately it's not being protected."
The next step is the Colorado Court of Appeals, and Churchill and Lane have 45 days to file the appeal.
CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke believes CU will win the appeal.
"[The ruling is] factually strong and it's legally strong. I think that this case could get resolved at the Court of Appeals level and the higher courts could say, 'We have no reason to review it further,'" O'Rourke said.
Churchill himself had nothing to say:
Churchill did not have any comment on Tuesday.
School administrators say the ruling gives them vindication.
"This is an issue about research misconduct. I said back in 2005 and again in 2006 that Professor Churchill's speech is protected. However, there were numerous allegations of research misconduct that needed to be investigated," CU Chancellor Phil DiStefano said.
"This is a huge win for the University of Colorado because the jury found against the university and the judge throwing the verdict out now can only be considered a major judicial upset," 9NEWS Legal Analyst Scott Robinson said.
But all sides agree that the case's journey through the courts is not over.
"This case will 100 percent be appealed and it's anyone's guess how it will be resolved in appeal," Robinson said. "This is a groundbreaking decision in an area of law that has not been visited very often in the past."
On Tuesday Chief Denver District Court Judge Larry Naves denied Churchill's motion for reinstatement of employment as well as any "front" pay. It was part of a decision where Naves granted CU and the Board of Regents immunity from being sued, which vacates the jury verdict from April of this year. . . . Naves ruled "because quasi-judicial immunity was a 'defense that would have been applicable to any of its officials or employees' it is a defense available to the University and the Board of Regents. In this case, it is clear that the Board of Regents performed a quasi-judicial function and acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when it heard Professor Churchill's case and terminated his employment."
"Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants are GRANTED quasi-judicial immunity as a matter of law from Professor Churchill's second claim for relief. As a result, the jury's verdict in this matter is hereby VACATED, and judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants on Professor Churchill's Second Claim for Relief."
Naves went on write: "If I granted reinstatement I believe there is a substantial likelihood that there would be future disputes about the propriety of Professor Churchill’s academic conduct... Under these circumstances and recognizing that the University’s faculty must have the ability to define the standards of scholarship, I am persuaded that reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy in this case... The same 'sharply conflicting evidence' about Professor Churchill’s job performance and the fundamental disagreements between the parties lead me to conclude that 'an absence of mutual trust' makes reinstatement unfeasible."
"We believe the judge appropriately applied the law to recognize the Board of Regents' role as a quasi-judicial body. This ruling recognizes that the regents have to make important and difficult decisions. The threat of litigation should not be used to influence those decisions."
In a 42-page decision issued today, Naves agreed with the university that Churchill's presence on the Boulder campus would suggest that the university tolerated academic misconduct.
"The evidence was credible that Professor Churchill will not only be the most visible member of the Department of Ethnic Studies if reinstated, but that reinstatement will create the perception in the broader academic community that the Department of Ethnic Studies tolerates research misconduct," Naves wrote.
"In addition, this negative perception has great potential to hinder students graduating from the Department of Ethnic Studies in their efforts to obtain placement in graduate programs," he wrote.
In April, a Denver jury agreed with Churchill's premise that he was illegally fired, but it stopped far short of awarding Churchill a high dollar figure. Instead it awarded Churchill $1.
Last week, Lane and Churchill were back in Judge Naves' courtroom arguing that their legal victory in April was enough for the judge to order reinstatement. Calling CU leaders, "constitutional law violators," Lane told Naves he had essentially no other choice but to reinstate the embattled professor.
CU's lead attorney Patrick O'Rourke argued that the $1 judgement in April should, in essence, speak for itself. O'Rourke suggested that reinstating Churchill would further damage the university's reputation.
The University of Colorado doesn't have to give fired ethnic studies Prof. Ward Churchill his job back, a Denver District Court judge ruled today.
"I conclude that reinstating Professor Churchill would entangle the judiciary excessively in matters that are more appropriate for academic professionals. In making this decision, I give considerable weight to the United States Supreme Court's recognition that 'considerations of profound importance counsel restrained judicial review of the substance of academic decisions,' " Denver District Court Judge Larry J. Naves, said in his 42-page decision.
Naves went on to say that trial courts may deny reinstatement when, as " practical matter, a productive and amicable working relationship would be impossible" or "the employer-employee relationship has been irreparably damaged by animosity caused by the lawsuit."
A jury in April found that the university illegally fired Churchill after he was accused of research misconduct.
Boulder learning will go on without Ward Churchill.
On Tuesday Judge Larry Naves granted CU's and the Board of Regent's motion for judgement as a matter of law that the Board of Regents is immune from being sued and vacates the jury verdict from April of this year.
Naves also denied Churchill's motion for reinstatement of employment as well as any "front" pay.
The Independence Institute's Todd Shepherd uncovers the excessive fee revenues generated by 911 tariffs that form a large portion of your costly monthly phone bill:
Suppose you choose a monthly cell phone plan that will charge you $59.99 every month. So how in the world does your final bill end up being closer to $70? 911 tariffs account for a portion of that final increase.
But 911 taxing authorities in Colorado appear to be consistently collecting anywhere from 20 to 50 percent or more in excess revenues annually, and these excess revenues are never returned to the public, and the tariffs are rarely lowered. . . . “It would appear that most of these 911 agencies have already bankrolled the capital they need for the changes and upgrades that they have on the horizon,” said Jon Caldara, President of the Independence Institute. “And given their track-record of over-collecting, it would seem that these taxes could still be lowered, without hampering their future projects or without threatening their reserves needed to deal with contingencies.
A detailed comparison of the various counties' revenues and expenditures can be found in the report.
Want to contribute? Visit our store for conservative gear for 2008! "A lot of guys yearning for adventure and romance would give their left one to be referred to in print as a man "who identified himself only as 'El Presidente.'" Nobody, for example, is ever going to refer to me as a man who "identified himself only as El Presidente." You bastard."--Drunkablog
