Slapstick Politics

Mothers, it's Time to Get MAD

2010-10-18T13:24:00.000-06:00

Why wouldn't you be? Our government is spending trillions of dollars and expects your children and grandchildren to pay for it.

Our politicians may not admit this, as their assertion is that it's actually for the children. But the American people and moms in particular are beginning to understand that this mantra is not only wrong, but morally bankrupt.

So what can we do about it?

Plenty. We can start by becoming better educated on the issues, so that we may discuss them with others in a logical and coherent manner. We musn't stop promoting the principles of freedom just because the election is over, no sir! It is when our ballots are cast and new members (hopefully) are chosen that the true test of our spirit begins. It behooves us to keep a watchful eye on government at all times, no matter friend or foe. And to do that, we must stay connected - to keep each other motivated, informed and in good spirits! So if you haven't already, find a Liberty on the Rocks near you (don't have one? Start your own!) and get to know other freedom-minded thinkers in your community!

To begin your educational journey in becoming an expert on the issues of free enterprise, individual liberties and constitutional government, let me recommend the following video from Mothers Against Debt. It's packed with informative examples of wasteful government expenditures that you can share with your friends and family. And did I mention that it's only a minute and a half? Check it out!

Video: Mothers Against Debt: Public Service Announcement

The Cyberbullying of Gay Youth

2010-10-13T16:03:00.000-06:00

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

By now, most of you have heard the sad story of Tyler Clementi. He was that unfortunate freshman at Rutgers University whose sexual encounter with another man was secretly filmed by his dorm roommate and live streamed over the internet. Mr. Clementi then committed suicide by jumping of the George Washington Bridge, having first posted his plans to his Facebook page. The incident captured the attention of the national press, which has since worked diligently to highlight much of the bullying gay youth endure daily.

The Denver Post is no exception. In yesterday’s front page story, “Young, Gay, Bullied,” the Post focused on the high rates of depression and suicide among young gay students who are bullied by or isolated from their peers. Of particular interest is the relatively recent phenomenon of cyberbullying through blogs, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and other online sources. The Post cited several methods of addressing this problem, ranging from additional tolerance education and awareness programs to school administrative punishments to new legislation criminalizing cyberbullying. Such legalistic outcomes, however, would render an already tragic situation truly ghastly.

Do not mistake me. I truly do understand the problem and I do not doubt the plight of these young gay people. During my own time in high school, I was careful not to reveal my bisexuality to more than a handful of trusted friends. I was well liked, and had no desire to sacrifice social status to an identity which would have rendered me an instant pariah. Still, there were always rumors, inevitable suspicions, and occasional confrontations. Some of that was decidedly unpleasant. I was lucky, though. Those friends who did know accepted it without question. Many others would not have cared even if I had told them. And to my family it was a non issue. Not everyone is so fortunate.

Unlike other minority groups, gay students have no natural support network; their parents and siblings are generally straight. Often, families not only have difficulty relating to the problems faced by gay youth, they also actively disapprove of homosexuality. Peers, faced with overwhelming pressure to fit in, will often disassociate from gay students for fear of being labeled with the f- word themselves. Gay people faced with any one of these situations can and do feel incredible isolation and depression. That much is undisputed. Debates among scholars and theologians regarding the causes, nature, and morality of human sexuality, however, can fill volumes. It is not something to be addressed here at the Peoples Press Collective, which limits its scope to issues dealing with individual liberty, the free market, and limited government. Unfortunately, whatever one may think of their intent, many of the proposals listed by the Post to address the cyberbullying faced by young gay people negatively impact all three of those topics.

Focus on the Family correctly points out the danger to the marketplace of ideas and free religious expression with mandatory school programs and penalties specifically tailored to promote tolerance for homosexuality. Many mainstream religious traditions regard homosexual acts as mortal sins. For any public school administration or law to step in to enforce toleration and acceptance of homosexuality would usurp the province of religion to define virtue and thus violate one of the most cherished aspects of the first amendment. According to the Post, Focus on the Family instead would like to see bullying policies that protect all students against all forms of bullying for any reason. Even this, however, goes too far.

Apparently, our society has gotten to the point where at least some believe it is no longer acceptable to make gay people feel excluded or unwanted. Well and good. After all, gay marriage and civil unions are increasingly recognized in the various states and nations of the world. What about stoners though? I recall those semi-dazed individuals who would languish behind the main building of my high school, quietly smoking their marijuana while the rest of us went to class. Many students shunned them and sneered at the foul reek that hung about them. Yet, smoking marijuana for medicinal reasons is now legal in Colorado. California may soon legalize it for any reason. Should we now prohibit any exclusion or derision of such drug use? And what of students who espouse a belief in the doctrines of Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, or the KKK? Such beliefs are certainly legal. However, at my high school, anyone who publicly stated such beliefs quickly found themselves without a single friend and excluded from all social functions by their peers. Should such exclusion and public derision be prohibited? I think not.

The first amendment also protects the freedom of expressive association. We can choose with whom to associate. We are also free to state the beliefs and values that hold such associations together and exclude and disapprove of those who refuse to meet those values. Sports and athletics are perhaps the most obvious examples of this. While participation is voluntary, you must accept the rules in order to be included. Failure to play by those rules results in censure and exclusion. Though other human associations may not be so clear about their rules, the basic idea is the same. Politicians soon find themselves excluded from their own parties if they take positions in conflict with the party platform. Dinner guests, likewise, do not often receive a second invitation if they forgo the use of any utensils or decorum. Indeed, such behavior, if it becomes publicly known, can even cause a person to lose his employment.

While most of us appreciate our freedom of association, few people acknowledge the importance of disassociation and publicly expressed disapproval. While exclusion does make people feel terrible, it is the best tool we have to regulate social norms and values in a free society. In this way, everyone is free to choose their own social circles, promote the values which are important to them, and exclude those who do not share such values. The only alternative is to have a governmental authority dictate all values and associations. That is completely unacceptable—but it seems many people are calling for exactly that in an effort to address cyberbullying.

Obviously, any responsible school should have reasonable policies prohibiting bullying on its grounds. Name calling and similar behavior is not only rude, it is disruptive to the educational process and should be sharply corrected. In the event of a physical altercation, the law, in addition to any school policy, can bring severe penalties to the aggressor, though all people have a right to defend themselves and others. However, when school policy or legislation extends beyond the school grounds and classrooms into the social lives and online interactions of students, problems arise.

Unless an overt physical threat is expressed, cyberbullying, while often cruel and rude, is often no more than disdainful speech. Any attempt to limit it can run afoul of the first amendment. It has other unpleasant consequences as well.

By interfering in the social lives and expressions of youth, such policies take away any opportunity students may have to express and enforce their own values, and places that responsibility solely on a governmental authority. The proper response to a bully who is rudely or inappropriately deriding a friend in speech or in any online forum is to exclude the bully from social life. Conversely, if someone expresses legitimate condemnation of unacceptable behavior, the object of such condemnation should be excluded. In this way, students learn to stand up for their own values and regulate their own behaviors. It does wonders for their sense of self worth as well. When the state or school authority criminalizes such behavior and usurps all power to regulate associations and interactions, it teaches our youth to rely not upon themselves and their friends to solve problems, but on official authority. In later life, that produces well trained sheep without any self esteem who follow their employers without question and who expect governmental authority, not individual innovation, to solve all of their problems for them. That is not how a free people should live. That is how slaves and serfs live.

Every time law intrudes into the province of etiquette, these problems arise. As a lawyer, I know it for absolute truth that law is seldom the best solution to any given problem. It is vital to remember that the authority of law ultimately issues from the barrel of a gun. Law is force. It takes away any choice or option and imposes a permanent directive which must be followed lest one lose property, liberty, or even life. Etiquette, on the other hand, is wholly consensual, dynamic, and continually adaptable. Merely by exercising our right to associate and disassociate as we see fit, we express and enforce the values which we want to guide our individual lives.

At times, we will all face situations in which we are rudely or perhaps even unjustly excluded and demeaned by those who do not share our values. Certainly, young gay students face this more often than most, and I have the greatest sympathy for them and what they endure. The solution, however, is not to call for the school authorities or state legislature to enforce tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, or whatever the case may be, upon everyone else.

Any victim of such ridicule should instead seek out a group of peers who share his values and stand ready to defend them and one another. Other students should express their own support of such individuals while publicly censuring and excluding anyone they believe is behaving rudely or inappropriately toward another individual. As families, friends, and community members, we should be encouraging our youth to express and defend our values. When we see others attacked for values we share, we should live by example and speak out in their defense, censuring and excluding bullies from our own social circles and networks. In this way, free people constantly foster and defend the values they live by—not by law, force, and compliance—but by individual choice, responsibility, and virtue. Moreover, unlike law, which imposes one standard on everyone, etiquette leaves each person free to find their own group of like minded individuals.

Having experienced the hardships bullies can impose first hand, I understand the deep desire people have to protect their children from enduring similar circumstances. As a current practitioner of corporate law with its stringent demands for professionalism, I abhor rudeness of any sort. Here at the PPC, we even created the “Political Breath” page to address issues of etiquette in political activism. However, much as I despise bullying and rudeness, I am unwilling to sacrifice my freedoms for the illusion of acceptance. Government cannot legislate social inclusion. It cannot grant self esteem. It cannot force virtue into human hearts. Only individuals have that power, and as individuals we must take the responsibility to do so.

Norton Attack Ad Improperly Taken From People’s Press Collective Video

2010-07-29T15:09:00.001-06:00

By Julian Dunraven

Honorable Friends:

This morning, Eileen Mahony, D.C. Bureau Chief for the People’s Press Collective, put up a very amusing piece about how the Norton campaign borrowed rather liberally from PPC to produce their latest attack ad against Ken Buck. Well, borrowed might not be quite accurate. Given that they took video from PPC, edited it to remove the PPC copyright notices, cropped the size of the video to remove the PPC title bar, and then added it to their ad without any citation to PPC whatsoever, some might even call that stealing. Unfortunately, that seems to be the theme of this election.

Judging from the comments in Ms. Mahony’s post, some have mistakenly assumed PPC is favoring Ken Buck in the primary. This is not true. PPC does not endorse in primary elections. However, its members do tend to object when campaigns try to steal their material. It seems they have objected rather strenuously too. PPC has provided access to a series of documents detailing this matter, including the PPC cease and desist letter to the Jane Norton campaign, the Norton campaign’s response, and PPC’s reiteration of its cease and desist demands.

As one of the PPC commentators has already suggested, this incident reveals a disturbing and lack of character in the Norton campaign. Not only did the campaign grossly distort Buck’s words in its ad, it took material from the PPC without permission or even attribution to do so. The PPC’s final letter to the Norton campaign asks, “If even allies of the campaign cannot depend upon it for fair dealing, how is the rest of the state supposed to trust it?” That is a question I think many of us will be considering.

7th Congressional District Primary Enters Final Stretch

2010-07-18T00:45:00.010-06:00

**Update from Sias campaign spokesman Sean Walsh:

"We’re hard-charging into the homestretch--Lang is energetic and upbeat . . . the momentum shift that started two months ago continues – Lang handily won the only straw poll held May 17; he came within 17 votes of top line at the May 20 Convention; we’ve received over $10,000 from donors who previously donated to our opponent; our latest fundraising quarter was our best one yet (our opponent was $50,000 short of his previous quarterly mark); in two televised debates Lang demonstrated a greater command of the issues, he’s far better prepared to lead – and he’s the only candidate in this race who will beat career politician Ed Perlmutter. And let’s not forget - Lang has achieved it all despite jumping into the race six months after our opponent – and being outspent nearly 5 to 1. Lang is heading a truly grassroots campaign that has shocked the pundits, the donors and the Colorado GOP establishment.

This isn’t just spin from the campaign manager. It’s all verifiable, relevant and part of the public record. Any 7th CD Republican who is reading this should avail themselves of both debates before voting next week – available for viewing on the Channel 9 KUSA and Channel 4 KCNC websites."

Walsh added that Sias was determined to beat Rep. Ed Perlmutter, regardless of who voters decided to put on the November ballot:

"If Councilman Frazier wins our party’s nomination for this seat, the first person who congratulates and endorses him will be Lang Sias. This race has never been about Lang or any other single person involved in the Republican Party – it’s about winning back this seat for the GOP. Whether as a candidate or in a supportive role, Lang Sias will continue to fight to defeat Ed Perlmutter."

With primary ballots set to hit mailboxes early next week, Republican voters in Denver's suburban 7th Congressional District are getting their last opportunities to learn about Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier and aviator and Top Gun instructor Lang Sias.

"I feel good about where we're at. We've knocked on 33,000 doors to date, made 40,000 phone calls and have been joined by over 2,000 volunteers. The grassroots support has really pulled together, and we're on the right track for August 10," said Frazier.

In three weeks, however, only one of the two men will be the Republican nominee squaring off against Democratic Representative Ed Perlmutter, who won his 2006 and 2008 contests handily.

"Whoever comes out of the race as the Republican nominee needs support, and I am committed to supporting and uniting to win back the 7th Congressional District," Frazier explained, "but I expect to win."

Frazier was attending Saturday's Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Party, hosted annually by the Independence Institute.

Sias' campaign could not be immediately reached for comment.

The Denver Post's Lynn Bartels profiled Frazier and Sias earlier this weekend.

9NEWS political reporter Adam Schrager hosted both candidates on "Your Show" this week:

Buck Responds to Norton Ad: "She Has Questioned My Manhood"

2010-07-17T17:00:00.012-06:00

"You'd think Ken would be man enough to do it himself"--Jane Norton, from her new TV ad

"Why should you vote for me? Because I do not wear high heels. She has questioned my manhood, I think it's fair to respond"--Ken Buck, referencing the Norton ad

Jane Norton's newest ad calls out her opponent and takes aim at the "shady interest group doing the bidding of Ken Buck", Americans for Job Security, that has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Colorado Senate race on Buck's behalf:

On Saturday at the Independence Institute's Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Party, Ken Buck responded to the Norton ad:

Buck took the shoe analogy one step further speaking, ahem, metaphorically about the state of politics in our nation's capital:

"I have cowboy boots. They have real bullsh** on them. That's Weld County bullsh**, not Washington DC bullsh**."

With a hotly contested primary still three weeks away, it is certain Colorado Republicans haven't heard the last of the two candidates exchanging "pleasantries" in their TV ads or on the campaign trail.

And that's no bull.

Threat of McInnis Plagiarism Scandal Extends Beyond Gubernatorial Race

2010-07-16T12:27:00.010-06:00

"I’m not getting out of this. They are bullying the wrong guy. I love the fight''--Scott McInnis to The Denver Post's Lynn Bartels

The political ramifications of the plagiarism charges against GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis that came to light earlier in the week have begun to build as the results of new polls, mounting denunciations in state news editorials (including his hometown paper), and criticism from fellow politicians demonstrates a move to abandon the erstwhile Republican frontrunner.

Following perceptions that McInnis badly mishandled the self-described "mistake", which he initially called a politically motivated charge and a "non-issue", the former congressman subsequently appeared to exacerbate his difficulties when his attempts to lay blame for the omitted attributions to a 20-year-old article on water rights on his 82-year-old former research assistant were accompanied by a letter that McInnis hoped would absolve him of responsibility for the alleged plagiarism. Rolly Fischer refused to sign the exculpatory letter admitting any blame, calling McInnis a liar.

Even ameliorating evidence in a second purported incident of plagiarism, this time involving a Washington Post column and its subsequent use by McInnis in his own op-ed and House floor speech, did little to mitigate the furor over the earlier allegations.

McInnis even drew comparisons to disgraced former CU Ethnic Studies Professor Ward Churchill from two Democratic CU Regents who voted for the professor's removal in 2007 after a faculty panel had moved for dismissal. Public officials, according to former Rocky Mountain News Editor John Temple, should not be held to different standards from other professionals when it comes to the issue of plagiarism.

The Hasan Family Foundation called for an investigation into the allegations of plagiarism leveled at McInnis earlier in the week over the 150 pages of water-related "issue papers" he had written as part of a foundation fellowship for which he was paid a hefty $300,000 sum. In a press release issued earlier today, the organization called on McInnis to repay the fellowship fees in full:

It is the finding of the Hasan Family Foundation Board that the work Congressman Scott McInnis performed under the Senior Fellowship was only a fraction of the work he was obligated to perform under the terms of his Fellowship. Of the little work that he did, he has admitted it was neither fully completed by him, nor fully original. In view of the public disclosure by Mr. McInnis as well as by Mr. Rolly Fischer, it is clear that Mr. McInnis has not fulfilled the terms of our agreement, and there is no need for any further investigation by the Foundation.

The Foundation demands he repay all monies paid to him under the Fellowship. The Foundation shall be making no further comment on the matter and will immediately return its full attention to the worthy causes it proudly funds and oversees.

Dr. Aliya Hasan, in an interview on KHOW's Caplis and Silverman show earlier today, indicated that the Foundation's intent was to offer McInnis a competitive, full-time fellowship. McInnis quickly responded, promising complete reimbursement:

"I have said since this matter was brought to my attention that the articles provided as part of the Hasan Family Foundation fellowship were faulty. I explained how this problem arose, and I accepted responsibility.

"I apologized to the Hasans for this mistake, and I expressed my determination to make it right with my dear friends. I will be in contact with the Hasan family to make full payment arrangements. I agree with the Foundation that this brings this matter to a close, and I look forward to continuing to speak on the campaign trail about the critical issues facing all of Colorado, including jobs and economic recovery."

The matter, however, is far from coming to a close.

Canceled appearances on Thursday in Erie and Friday at a prominent fundraising dinner for Denver and Arapahoe counties featuring Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have also set tongues wagging, coming on the heels of snap polls indicating the McInnis campaign hemorrhaging support as those surveyed showed eroding confidence in their preferred candidate and, more importantly, from voters in both registered Republicans and "likely voters" categories.

Calls to McInnis spokesperson Josh Green about other possible canceled appearances by the campaign in coming days went unanswered.

In both polls, each conducted Thursday, numbers show a staggering loss of support for the embattled Republican. Sixty-four percent of registered Republicans in the Denver Post/SurveyUSA poll who claimed to back McInnis before the plagiarism row indicate a willingness to leave their top choice for an alternative list of speculative GOP gubernatorial replacements, including former Congressman and conservative firebrand Tom Tancredo, current US Senate candidate and former Colorado Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton, outgoing State Senate Minority Leader and former gubernatorial candidate Josh Penry (who is currently the campaign manager for Norton's senatorial bid), and current University of Colorado President and failed former Colorado gubernatorial candidate (1994) Bruce Benson. Only when asked if they would switch to "another candidate"--ostensibly the other name on the already-printed August 10 primary ballots, businessman Dan Maes--did McInnis appear to hold some ground. Overall, 37 percent believed that McInnis should simply drop out of the race, with just under half urging him to soldier on to the primary.

The Western Slope Republican also retains a measure of strong support in his base centered around Grand Junction.

In head-to-head polling with Democratic candidate John Hickenlooper, however, the effects of this week's news is clear. According to Rasmussen, the Denver Mayor has retaken a narrow two point lead (45-43) among "likely voters" for the first time since his post-announcement bounce in February, when current Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter announced his retirement and Hickenlooper's entry cleared the Democratic field.

Pollster.com's Colorado Governor tracking poll

On a more critical front, the McInnis "inner" exodus begins, as members of McInnis' campaign bail on the reeling gubernatorial candidate:

Three key staffers for Republican Scott McInnis quit Friday after a week of plagiarism allegations and accusations of campaign mismanagement battered their boss.

Policy director Mac Zimmerman, political director Dustin Zvonek and regional director T.Q. Houlton packed up and left, according to sources close to McInnis’ gubernatorial campaign.

The disaffected staffers "can no longer defend" the actions of McInnis:

"The turning point in the campaign was the interview with Rolly Fischer," the source said. "Jaws dropped. They couldn't believe Scott tried to pin it on him … It was game, set, match. It was a crusher."

In the meantime, possible scenarios to replace the battered Mcinnis and even his primary rival Maes abound on blogs (also here and here), in the media, and in the highest echelons of the party. Colorado GOP Chair Dick Wadhams sought to quell questions about possible write-in candidates, vacancy committees, and candidate race-switching, assuring that the primary process had produced two certified candidates, and that the Republican primary voters would have the final decision.

In a video from KDVR Fox 31, calls for McInnis to drop out immediately for the good of the party came from Tancredo, whose name has been widely bandied about as a possible replacement and has given the clear impression of a willingness to run, even as an independent (and who was the subject of much speculation himself last fall when Penry unexpectedly dropped out of the race).

While rumors that the Republican Governor's Association had decided to pull out of Colorado over the plagiarism flap were hastily denied by the group, the Colorado GOP meltdown turned attention to the ongoing US Senate primary for possible replacements. US Senate candidates Ken Buck and Norton remained relatively mum on the subject, saying the decision was in McInnis' hands, and their respective focuses remained on their tough primary battle.

Rampant speculation aside, replacing a candidate (or two, should Maes decide to stay in) with a vacancy committee could be difficult under state law:

The process of trying to get a new candidate is procedurally complicated. First, the Aug. 10 primary ballots are printed and go out by mail Monday. Forty-six of the state's 64 counties are holding all-mail elections. Second, state law is unclear. On its face, it appears to prohibit another candidate getting in the race unless both Maes and McInnis drop out. In that case, a Republican vacancy committee would appoint the nominee.

But Rich Coolidge, spokesman for the Colorado secretary of state, said his office was researching whether it was possible for a committee to replace a second candidate if someone drops out. He expected an answer in the next day or two.

In either situation, there is a strong likelihood that ballots will already be in the hands of voters. It's unclear how votes for a new candidate would be cast.

Even Secretary of State Bernie Buescher (D) declined to issue a "hypothetical" opinion on candidate replacement in a primary race.

Republican activist Nikki Mata, founder of R Block Party, noted that several Tea Party and 9/12 groups had already begun to discuss how much input grassroots conservatives might be able to confer should a vacancy committee become a reality, and possible defections should the process be mishandled:

"In the state where Tea Party and grassroots involvement is the highest in the nation, to go ahead and conduct a closed-doors meeting without outside input and anoint a replacement candidate would essentially amount to political suicide for the party. There is already talk of going to a third party if this happens."

She pointed to the outrage amongst grassroots conservatives last December when a McInnis interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News dubbed him the "Tea Party candidate" following what appeared to be an establishment-backed clearing of the field as Penry hastily exited the governor's race.

Northern Colorado Tea Party organizer Lesley Hollywood agreed that the political fallout could be disastrous should the Republican party turn a deaf ear:

"If the situation arises where a new nominee will need to be chosen, the Colorado Republican Party needs to tread very carefully. In the year of the Tea Party; the year where one in three Colorado voters belongs to a Tea Party or similar organization; the year in which the energized "base" is not coming from within the GOP, but the pro-liberty movement sweeping the state; it's important for the establishment to bring the grassroots voices to the table.

The ramifications of anything less could be devestating to the gubernatorial race and the 2010 election. Some may lean toward a third party candidate, such as Benjamin Goss of the Constitutionalist Party. There is also the likely possibility of voter revolt, with many choosing to rebel against the establishment choice by not voting at all. And of course, the public outrage could be incredibly damaging to the Republican Party image as a whole."

Plagiarism Renders Scott McInnis Unfit to Practice Law or Govern

2010-07-14T22:26:00.000-06:00

By Julian Dunraven, J.D. M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Yesterday’s Denver Post reported that Scott McInnis plagiarized the work of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Gregory J. Hobbs in articles McInnis drafted for the Hasan Family Foundation. The foundation paid McInnis $300,000 for these articles.

After the story broke, Mr. McInnis blamed a researcher for the problem and claimed in his own press release that the plagiarism was unintentional. This is rubbish.

Mr. McInnis is certainly familiar with academic and professional writing standards; he is a doctor of law, after all. Thus, he should know he has an obligation to review any material submitted by a research assistant. However, he should also know that, if he intends to use whole pages of text submitted by his research assistant, then he has a responsibility to list the research assistant as a minor coauthor and cite his contributions. Mr. McInnis failed to do either of these things. Instead, he claims he took whole passages of text, supposedly submitted by an assistant, added them to his article, and represented it all as original and finished work, but somehow did so unintentionally. In order to believe such acts can be accomplished unintentionally, we have to believe that Mr. McInnis was not in control of his own body or mind. Perhaps he was possessed at the time. Otherwise, he is lying. Which do you suppose is more likely?

Plagiarism represents the height of intellectual dishonesty and reveals a complete lack of academic integrity. Not so long ago, virtually all conservatives and most liberals agreed that a similar lack of academic integrity rendered Ward Churchill unfit to teach at a university. I cannot now find any ethical way to apply a lesser standard to a man who seeks, not simply to lecture a few dozen students in a classroom, but to govern the entire state of Colorado.

During law school, I sat on the faculty’s academic affairs committee as a student member. During one of our meetings, we discussed what to do about a few students who had indulged in plagiarism. The guilty students put up the same defense McInnis now offers. They claimed they did not fully understand that they were plagiarizing and that it was all unintentional.

I had no sympathy for such excuses. The idea that anyone can get into a top tier law school like the University of Colorado and not understand plagiarism is absurd. Thus, I recommended immediate expulsion for these students. The professors, however, did not want to appear unmerciful. They simply gave the students failing grades in the classes in which they were caught plagiarizing. The law school then forwarded a report of the incidents to the Colorado Supreme Court’s Board of Law Examiners, detailing the penalties discussed and imposed. The Board of Law Examiners, however, agreed with me. None of these students were permitted to sit for the Bar Examination—they were not permitted to become practicing attorneys.

Already a practicing attorney, McInnis cannot be prevented from taking the bar exam. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect that the Colorado Supreme Court will soon review McInnis’ actions and sanction him for violating Rule 8.4 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. Anyone seeking to file a complaint about McInnis’ conduct should contact the Attorney Regulation Counsel.

Plagiarism renders a person unfit to teach at a university because academic dishonesty undermines trust in all legitimate scholarship. Plagiarism renders a person unfit to practice law because a person who would lie about a mere academic paper cannot hope to be trusted with protecting both the finances and liberties of his clients—not to mention the integrity of the justice system. The temptation to lie becomes too severe for such an unprincipled person. Yet, neither a professor nor any individual lawyer holds such public trust as a governor of a state.

The Tea Party movement, in its call for accountability in our public servants, reminds us that this issue of trustworthiness is of paramount importance today. The Republican Party is laudably attempting to address these concerns and redeem its past mistakes by demanding responsible limited government always accountable to the people. Mr. McInnis, however, has dishonored himself and proven totally unworthy of the people’s trust. Yet he has the audacity to ask the Republican Party to nominate him as its candidate for governor. After the Republican fury over Ward Churchill, nominating McInnis would be the height of hypocrisy and further alienate already disillusioned voters and Tea Party activists.

For these reasons, I must regrettably join in the call for Mr. McInnis to withdraw from the gubernatorial race in order to spare himself and our Party from further embarrassment. At this point, no ethical Republican could vote for him without shame or with any expectation of reform in government as usual. If plagiarism demonstrates such unprincipled character as to make a man unfit to teach and an attorney unfit to practice law, then it should certainly render a candidate unfit to be the governor of Colorado.

2010-06-20T21:49:00.001-06:00

my banner maker

No Economic Recovery; Prepare For Inflationary “Meltup”

2010-05-14T21:53:00.000-06:00

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Your government is lying to you. We are not in economic recovery. We are merely experiencing a cash bubble through printing—inflation—and every day that bubble is in greater danger of bursting. When it does, the American people will face national bankruptcy.

The following video comes to me on the recommendation of Gerald Celente, director of the Trends Research Institute, and The Trends Journal. For those of you who have not already subscribed to his journal, he is one of the best economic forecasters in the world.

To my friends in the Tea Party, this is why you are marching. Simply getting Republicans elected will not be enough to save this nation from economic collapse. Any politician, Democrat or Republican, who does not understand what is in this video must go.

In addition to Mr. Celente, this documentary, "Meltup," features some of the best economic experts available including:

Peter Schiff, Austrian School economist, bestselling author of Crash Proof, owner of Euro Pacific Capital, former economic advisor to Ron Paul, and current candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut

Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas , former presidential Candidate, bestselling author and voice of the Austrian School economists on Capitol Hill

Marc Faber, renowned Austrian School economist.

Jim Rogers, investor, author, and financial commentator

Tom Woods, historian, bestselling author, and senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

And several others.

The National Inflation Association has done a fine job in producing "Meltup." Our liquid fuels crisis, the manipulations and fraud in the precious metals markets, the debt problems and the looming threat of dollar collapse through inflation are all covered in detail. As Celente points out, we are on the verge of the second American Revolution. This video will give you a better understanding of what we face, and what the Tea Party and its supporters MUST achieve if it is to be successful.

Chatting with Tom Wiens: Colorado Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate

2010-05-13T07:08:00.001-06:00

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Thanks to profligate spending policies, bailouts, stimulus packages, and unprecedented extensions of Federal power, I have a good deal of confidence that Democrats will suffer many defeats in the upcoming elections. I just wish I felt equally confident that the Republicans who replace them will do much better. Unfortunately, after chatting briefly with various candidates in the last few forums, I often had the impression that I was talking to some sort of annoying animatronic devices which, upon sensing motion, would begin to recite a list of talking points: “Drill, baby drill,” “All of the above,” “No more bailouts,” and “I’m against stimulus.” Any questions seeking more information about these subjects just triggered another recitation. If this is the depth of understanding we can expect from politicians, is it any wonder why even many Republicans in Congress voted for the so called Jobs bill—a stimulus by another name? Our Republican candidates have all figured out that they should oppose bailouts and stimulus packages, but if the only way they can recognize a bailout or stimulus bill is if it says so in the title, then we are all in a great deal of trouble.

In chatting with the various people vying for the Republican nomination to be the next U.S. Senator, I was impressed by the enthusiasm and decency of the candidates, but not by their grasp of the fundamental economic issues this country must face. I was almost ready to despair over the state of Colorado politics . . . until I overheard Tom Wiens answering a question about the gold market and displaying a depth of economic understanding I have almost never seen in a politician. I immediately requested an interview and, last week, he was kind enough to sit down with me for an hour and a half to chat about the state of the nation.

Now, I did not bring the PPC film crew to this interview; I did not even bring a voice recorder. I was not interested in sound bites or talking points. I was only interested to know what made Mr. Wiens any different from any other Republican candidate, and why anyone should trust him at all given the abysmal job Republicans have done so far in their half-hearted attempts to support limited government and a free market. Mr. Wiens exceeded all of my expectations and left me thoroughly impressed.

The difference in experience between Mr. Wiens and his fellow GOP contenders is fairly obvious. While his major competitors have spent virtually their entire careers in the public sector, Mr. Wiens, by contrast, has a strong background in the private sector as a Colorado banker, rancher, and entrepreneur. Thus, he knows the costs increased regulation and taxation place on small businesses – not just in money – but also in time and effort.

Of course, these days a strong business background is not always a great recommendation for politicians. Our federal government is absolutely full of private sector businessmen who seem all too happy to use the power of government to influence various industries. Many commentators have noted the unprecedented influence of former Goldman Sachs executives in the Bush and Obama administrations, and with the Federal Reserve. The American people are rightly angry that Wall Street so often persuades Congress to offer advantages to some businesses and industries over others.

Mr. Wiens certainly understands this. Rather than make the usual hollow attacks on special interests, however, he blames Congress for overreaching to the point they have created a business climate that almost requires government involvement. When Congress holds some industries accountable for their errors while providing bailouts to cover the mistakes of others and can be persuaded to create anticompetitive regulations to ensure the survival of favored businesses, it should surprise no one that lobbying has become a blood sport.

To Mr. Wiens, the solution to this is not to try silencing lobbyists and industry. That would just mean Congress could continue to meddle in the economy unimpeded—but with even less information on which to base their ill-considered policies. Congress, he says, needs to massively scale back spending, taxes, and much of its administration if it truly wants to aid the economy. Unfortunately, because so few members of Congress have any proper understanding of economics, even some Republicans can be convinced that stimulus packages and jobs bills are needed to help economic growth. In truth, all the stimulus bills have done is increase liquidity and inflation, pouring cash into an increasingly unstable financial market, without any increase in productive capacity at all.

Mr. Wiens suffers no such confusion about economics. He is an avid student of Austrian School free market economics and can speak eloquently and easily about the long term devastating effects bailouts and stimulus packages will ultimately have on our economy. According to him, if Congress really wants to help, it needs to stay out of the markets, lower taxes, pull back its administrative agencies, and massively cut spending—and not just the tiny bit of the total budget that goes to earmarks.

That is certainly sound policy, but I have heard other Republicans say something similar, then watched them vote on appropriations bills in lockstep with liberals. To this challenge, Mr. Wiens pointed out that, as a state senator, he was frequently the only ‘no’ vote in hearings despite the urgings of his own party. I checked with a few of his old colleagues at the state legislature and they all confirm that, even when every other Republican and Democrat was in agreement, if a bill violated Mr. Wiens’ principles as to the proper role of government, he would vote ‘no.’ This earned him a reputation as a bit of a curmudgeon, but also as a man of integrity and philosophical consistency. Though a smart politician can always feign devotion to principle, it is quite rare to find one who has a voting record to prove it.

All of this is rather encouraging and speaks well of Mr. Wiens. However, his many admirable traits are not what inspired my trust. It was his faults that impressed me most. You see, Mr. Wiens talks too much—far too much for talking points and sound bites. During the course of our conversation, he excitedly proposed a single subject rule for congressional bills, sunset provisions for virtually all laws and agencies, and an evaluation process to determine when an agency is bankrupt or failed and should be closed. He burbled on about the precious metal markets, the housing market, and the sovereign debt crisis of the states and much of the EU in great detail. Finally, we talked about energy policy and the liquid fuels crisis. I was impressed he could speak so fluently about supply shortages, increased usage, infrastructure problems, environmental issues, and national security concerns that affect the issue, and quickly decided we would have to discuss some of these issues in more detail on camera.

At one point, we were briefly interrupted by a member of his staff asking a question about provisions for a party. Mr. Wiens was somewhat irked by the interruption and apologized profusely. However, had it not occurred, I would have never known that, every year, he invites cadets from the Air Force Academy out to his ranch for a small celebration in appreciation of the service they do for this country. It just happened to be going on during our interview. While Mr. Wiens may not have thought to mention it, I was quite impressed.

This is why I did not want a video camera or voice recorder for this interview. When people know they are not going to be on video or quoted directly, they tend to speak more freely and you get a better picture of their true characters. When you get to know him, Mr. Wiens does not seem like a typical politician. In fact, I think trying to hold back his enthusiasm and speak only in prepared sound bites might actually kill him. Considering his passionate interest in free market economics and policy, and after examining some of the dense books on those subjects he reads for leisure, you might even call him a bit of a nerd. A distinctly private person, Mr. Wiens is more at home with his own family and business interests than with the megalomaniac self promotion required by a statewide campaign. I think he would not be running at all if he did not so clearly see the terrible financial storm building over this country and most of the world. Mr. Wiens certainly has the means to ensure he and his family can weather that storm. However, he is also a patriot, and he is trying to offer his knowledge and experience to the people of this state and nation to help them weather it as well. His knowledge, experience, and philosophical integrity impressed me greatly, and his personality is far too enthusiastic and quirky to be anything but honest. He may be exactly what we need. I strongly encourage all our honorable friends to take a good look at his candidacy as we approach the primary. I think you will be impressed. So far, I have yet to meet anyone better.

Denver Tea Party 2010: PPC Livestreaming Coverage

2010-04-14T15:08:00.002-06:00

You can follow the latest Colorado are Tax Day Tea Parties at People's Press Collective and Denver Tea Party, both of which will be providing gavel-to-gavel livestreaming coverage of tomorrow's Denver Tea Party.

Colorado Supreme Court Overturns Amendment 54--As I Predicted

2010-02-24T13:25:00.001-07:00

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends,

In its recent opinion , Dallman v. Ritter, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned Amendment 54 saying that it was "unconstitutionally vague, disproportional, overbroad, or otherwise infirm. Indeed, we find the Amendment’s deficiencies so pervasive that we must nullify the Amendment in its entirety."

As you may recall, Amendment 54 of the Colorado Constitution would have prevented those with no bid government contracts and their families from making campaign contributions for the duration of the contract and for two years thereafter. Supporters claimed it was intended to prevent the appearance of corruption in no bid government contracts. It was passed by voters in 2008.

If you have been a long time reader of the People’s Press Collective or Slapstick Politics, you may also recall that I advised against voting for this amendment, correctly predicting that its restrictions went too far and trampled first amendment rights. I am pleased to see that the Court agreed with me.

Never let it be said, however, the Conservatives are monolithic in their thinking. Many of my colleagues here at the PPC and other prominent conservatives supported this amendment. Though I was unable to join in their enthusiasm for the complete amendment, their stated goal of improving transparency in government is laudable. Indeed, the amendment contained one provision requiring that the state maintain a database of no bid contracts which the public can access and inspect at will. This alone would have addressed issues of transparency adequately, without any of the constitutional problems the rest of the amendment causes. It is also the section of the Amendment the Court found least objectionable. With minimal redrafting, it could be reenacted on its own. Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute has called for the legislature to do just that. Given that this was the only Amendment the voters actually passed in 2008, the legislature would be wise to heed his advice.

State of the Union Attack on the Supreme Court Extremely Inappropriate

2010-01-27T22:13:00.001-07:00

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

After watching the State of the Union address tonight, I notice not much has actually changed in a year. Fashion, for instance, remains a foreign concept in Congress. We were back to the standard assemblage of wretchedly dull red and blue ties for men, and uninspiring cliché shades of red and blue suits for women. One elected official sitting next to John McCain even tried to combine the standards by pairing a blue tie with a bright red vest. Unfortunately, the result was so appallingly garish that I cannot even given him token points for creativity. At least the politician uniform makes them easy to spot and avoid on the street. I suppose I should just be happy that the President chose to forgo the imperial purple he often wore during the campaign; it would have made his tone even more alarming.

Mr. Obama’s policies were also remarkably unchanged. As many other sources will discuss, he held firm to his ultra liberal commitments to impose cap and trade legislation, impose massive government intervention into the economy and financial sector, and remain firm in his efforts to impose a radical government takeover of healthcare.

Nonetheless, I must admit that the speech carried an appealingly strong tone of disgust with Washington, political games, backroom deals, and irresponsible spending. I might be more impressed if I were able to forget that Mr. Obama and the Democrats have controlled both the White House and Congress for over a year, now, and even held a super majority in the Senate until last week. If politics in Washington are a bit dodgy, one can hardly blame the Republicans or, after a year’s time, continue to whine about the old policies of Mr. Bush.

Perhaps the most amusing point in the speech came when Mr. Obama asserted that responsible budgeting and economics required that we do not reign in spending until we are actually in recovery, and until then we should pour more money into a stimulus bill, which we will now call a jobs bill. I was pleased to see I was not the only one unable to contain my laughter at this absurdity. The Republicans in the chamber all seemed to erupt into derisive chuckles. As the Republican response pointed out, the way to recovery is not through increasing government interference in the economy—not financial, not energy, and not healthcare. Nor is it to excessively spend or tax the wealthy, or increasingly grant loans which we then forgive after 20 years. Rather, it is to roll back government in general, lower taxes across the board, and allow the economy to function on its own, free of the favors or penalties of government.

Mr. Obama did mention a few positives. He seemed willing to talk about nuclear power and off shore drilling, for instance. However, if he intends to include these things as part of larger cap and trade legislation, then he poisons the well of energy before we even start drilling it. He also talked about granting gays equal treatment in the military. However, as commander in chief, he has the power to do this at the stroke of a pen. Whatever you may think of the idea, do not expect his talks with Congress and the Pentagon to produce any results on this matter. The Democrats love to assure GLBT people that they should be treated as equals while doing absolutely nothing to support that idea beyond giving speeches. His other prior work on ending torture and closing Guantanamo Bay, while laudable, was not mentioned at all. His utter lack of progress on that goal might have been a bit embarrassing, I suppose, as would his incomprehensible failure to understand how to properly balance an interest in basic human rights with the need to secure against terrorist enemy combatants. Treating them all as if they were domestic criminals is so profoundly foolish that I believe he was wise not to raise the subject.

Commentators seem to be overlooking the most disturbing aspect of Mr. Obama’s speech, though. He openly criticized the decision making of the Supreme Court and allowed the chamber to applaud his remarks on that subject. It is one thing to express disagreement with the Court on matters of policy in his role as the Chief Executive. It is another to publicly censure the decision making capabilities and the very competence of a Supreme Court decision during the State of the Union address. This was a direct attack on the credibility of the third branch of government, the branch that depends entirely upon the respect of the public for its authority. It was completely inappropriate for the President to make such remarks, and I cannot recall the last time a President made such an overt assault on the authority of a coequal branch of government. It may indeed have been FDR. I suppose I should not be surprised by yet another frightening similarity between the two. Coupled with his arrogant demand that Congress deliver a jobs bill to his desk, I am increasingly alarmed at the astonishing imperial attitude which seems to exude from Mr. Obama.

The only true change I spotted this evening was in the Republican response. Delivering the response in front of a live audience in the Virginia House of Delegates was a splendid change this year. Despite the fact that much of the speech was still pre written, it did respond to parts of the President’s address, and did a lovely job of contrasting the approach of the two parties to our national economic crisis: Democrats believe more government regulation with targeted tax incentives is the answer; Republicans believe government in general should be scaled back and taxes should be lowered across the board. Voters will decide in November which approach sounds more appealing. I have little doubt as to which option they will favor.

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Corporate Political Spending Ban

2010-01-22T08:07:00.003-07:00

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable Friends:

Do you believe the government should determine what the media can broadcast? Do you believe the government should decide which businesses constitute “media” and which do not? This is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled on yesterday in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. As Justice Kennedy wrote for the conservative majority:

“The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations-- including nonprofit advocacy corporations-- either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U.S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.” 558 U.S. ___ (2010) at 20.

This law, according to the majority opinion, gives rise to “the dangerous, and unacceptable, consequence that Congress could ban political speech of media corporations,” on a whim. Even the People’s Press Collective, as private corporation not classified as traditional media, could have incurred criminal liability for advocating for or against any candidate within the statute’s time frame. Does this frighten you? It should.

The reason for this oppressive law is that it supposedly protects shareholders from being forced to fund political causes with which they disagree. It also prevents the appearance of corruption and quid pro quo arrangements between politicians and corporate interests. Finally, and most importantly, it allegedly prevents the distortion of the election process by the large accumulations of wealth held by corporations.

The Court swiftly dismissed the first two concerns. Corporate shareholders have the option of divesting if they do not like the actions of any particular company. However, even if this were not the case, limiting political speech only in the days immediately prior to an election but at no other time hardly shows a serious concern for shareholder interests. As to quid pro quo arrangements, we already have anti-bribery laws in force. Attempting to go further and prevent mere access or influence is not only impossible, it is an impediment to representative democracy itself. As it is, the law would continue to permit lobbying by those companies wealthy enough to engage in it, but prohibit other companies from engaging in fundamental political advocacy; hardly an equitable arrangement.

In his dissent, Justice Stevens argued passionately, if not plausibly, that the government has a strong interest in preventing the appearance of corruption corporate wealth can create. He further maintained that, as the First Amendment never mentions corporate entities, they should not be entitled to full speech and press protections. In fact, he maintains that corporate speech is adequately protected in the lengthy procedures set up to create 527 groups, PACs, and the cumbersome and expensive filing, reporting, and maintenance requirements such affiliations entail.

The Court maintains, however, that:

“The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day. Prolix laws chill speech for the same reason that vague laws chill speech: People ‘of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application.’ The Government may not render a ban on political speech constitutional by carving out a limited exemption through an amorphous regulatory interpretation.” Id. at 7 (internal citation omitted).

The Court goes on to point out that corporations, as affiliations of individuals, have long enjoyed First Amendment protections. Moreover, the text of the First Amendment itself is not limited to individuals, but protects the freedoms of speech and the press in general. The Court, “rejected the premise that the Government has an interest in equalizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections,” and stated that, “The First Amendment’s protections do not depend on the speaker’s financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Id. at 37 (internal citation omitted).

In short, the First Amendment exists to protect the political speech of citizens, as individuals, groups, or corporations. “By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” Id. at 24.

“The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach. The Government has muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy. And the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function. By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the Government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests. Factions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the remedy of destroying the liberty of some factions is worse than the disease. Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak, and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false.” Id. at 38 (internal citation omitted).

This is as it should be. Despite this, though, the Court still upheld requirements for disclosing donors and issuing disclaimers as to who funds political advertisements. Only Justice Thomas objected to this. He points out the possible chilling effects on speech when activists target political donors with violence and intimidation, saying, “I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the primary object of First Amendment protection.” Id at 6 (Thomas, J., concurring) (internal citation omitted). Thus, he maintains we have still one further step to take on the road to truly free political speech.

As it stands, the Supreme Court has overturned the ban on direct corporate political advocacy. Corporations are still subject to contribution limits in candidate campaigns, as are individuals, and they must still disclose their donors and take credit for any political advertisement they produce. Nonetheless, this decision should be celebrated by anyone who still believes in the First Amendment. Here in Colorado, I am certain some enterprising company will use this decision to overturn our own state ban on direct corporate advocacy, which so closely mirrors federal law. I look forward to that day.

Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Illegals’ Privacy Rights—Correctly

2009-12-15T08:00:00.002-07:00

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

2009-12-08T08:00:00.000-07:00

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

2009-11-25T08:30:00.001-07:00

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

2009-11-24T09:00:00.003-07:00

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

2009-10-30T08:30:00.000-06:00

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

2009-10-20T17:23:00.004-06:00

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

2009-09-16T20:09:00.003-06:00

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!

2009-09-06T01:07:00.004-06:00

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

2009-08-08T20:18:00.003-06:00

**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

2009-08-07T08:00:00.000-06:00

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

2009-08-06T15:13:00.002-06:00

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

2009-08-05T14:33:00.003-06:00

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

2009-08-05T13:15:00.001-06:00

Barack Obama--Teleprompter In Chief

2009-08-05T11:26:00.002-06:00

Brought to you by Republican Princess.

Economic Development . . . For No One

2009-08-05T09:19:00.000-06:00

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

2009-07-29T23:55:00.002-06:00

**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

2009-07-29T13:51:00.001-06:00

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

2009-07-29T08:30:00.005-06:00

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

2009-07-24T12:53:00.002-06:00

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

Not All Republicans Are Clueless About New Media--Taking Aim At Gov. Ritter On Waxman-Markey

2009-07-22T12:16:00.008-06:00

**Update--ColoradoPols is impressed:

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."

"We got our message across," Demsey [sic] said.

The video of the exchange quickly made the rounds on the blogs, including Michelle Malkin:

Milton Friedman Remembered: Friedman Legacy For Freedom Lunch

2009-07-21T12:32:00.002-06:00

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

2009-07-21T11:30:00.007-06:00

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:

From Sen. Inhofe:

"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."

Full text of Ritter's prepared statement. Face the State has a recap of the day's testimony.

Ryan Frazier To Make Senate Run Official In Coming Weeks

2009-07-15T15:46:00.002-06:00

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

2009-07-13T13:52:00.005-06:00

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.

Click here to take the July 2009 Colorado online political survey

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.

The survey is available online at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=0Y5MO2_2bj08iRwT0VIGbMQg_3d_3d

“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

2009-07-13T08:00:00.000-06:00

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.

The survey is available online at:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=0Y5MO2_2bj08iRwT0VIGbMQg_3d_3d

“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

Churchill Billed For Legal Expenses, May Top $50K

2009-07-09T14:48:00.003-06:00

Heh--may be as high as $50K.

Pravda takes up Churchill's cause.

Big post-decision link roundup at PirateBallerina.

Sen. Inhofe On Cap And Trade: Meaningless WIthout China And India On Board

2009-07-08T16:14:00.005-06:00

~~Cap-and-Tax~~ Cap-and-Trade dead in the water without support from China and India, who have vowed not to imperil their economies and lower standards of living:

"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.

Breaking--Ward Churchill Denied Reinstatement

2009-07-07T12:51:00.015-06:00

**Update 6--Ross Kaminsky provides an excellent detailed breakdown of Judge Larry Naves' decision in the Churchill lawsuit; more reactions on Churchill's failed lawsuit at Drunkablog, including a roundup of links; comprehensive followups at PirateBallerina (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), including CU billing Churchill for legal expenses; ACTA's take on the decision

**Update 5--CU Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano and CU attorney Pat O'Rourke:

**Update 4--The fat lady isn't singing--Churchill's attorney, David Lane, is planning to file an appeal:

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."

**Update 3--CU and Board of Regents granted immunity:

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."

**Update 2--CU President Bruce Benson:

"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."

From the ruling:

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.

**Update--full text of Judge Naves' ruling (pdf), and a mini-recap of the arguments presented after Churchill's April "victory," in which he was awarded damages of $1:

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.

--extensive SP Churchill archives

--more at PirateBallerina

Perhaps the final chapter in the Ward Churchill saga:

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.

Expensive Phone Bill? Excess 911 Fees Stack Up

2009-07-07T11:13:00.003-06:00

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.

July 4 Break--Link Roundup

2009-06-30T14:34:00.010-06:00

I'm off to the ~~fetid swamp of power~~ nation's capital for a much needed break--in the meantime, check out the following links for an excellent roundup of political news, analysis, and events.

Enjoy those freedoms while they last--and keep up the good fight for liberty!

Liberty on the Rocks:

People's Press Collective:

Complete Colorado:

Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0:

Face the State:

Clear the Bench Colorado:

Move America Forward: Troopathon

2009-06-25T14:18:00.005-06:00

Support the troops with donations for care packages--Michelle Malkin has the background, Andrew Breitbart is co-hosting, special guests (like Rush Limbaugh and Jon Voight) will appear throughout the eight hour live webcast, and the goal is $1 million:

Senate 2010: Ryan Frazier--"A New Way Forward"

2009-06-23T12:39:00.007-06:00

Quite impressive effort to kick off Frazier's broader introduction to Colorado's voter population--combining stirring clips from his stump speech and a nice blend of visual imagery in a longer format than the soundbite campaign ads we are accustomed to:

"Capitalism over socialism, freedom over slavery, life over death, and states' rights ove central planning"--sounds like an excellent place to start.

DMYR June Meeting Featuring Lynn Bartels And David Harsanyi

2009-06-23T12:12:00.001-06:00

Join Denver Metro Young Republicans on June 23rd for our June General Meeting. This month we are pleased to welcome members of the local Media, including Lynn Bartels (formerly of the Rocky Mountain News) and David Harsanyi, reporters from the Denver Post. They will discuss the media’s role in politics help us break down the current state of the Republican Party in Colorado.

HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS READY for these Colorado media standouts!

Our Agenda will also include election of 7 County Directors from each of our member counties (Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson). See By-laws for qualifications of officers.

These individuals will be responsible for coordinating DMYR activities in their county, providing communication between their County Chairmen/officers and the DMYR board, and tracking DMYR activism in their county in conjunction with the DMYR Activism Director. If you are ready to step up and play a critical role in your County and THE top Young Republican Organization in Colorado, we encourage you to run for these positions!

As always, if you have questions about politics, the party, or the political process in general, we are always ready to listen and answer your questions. We are ready to help YOU make a difference in your Community and the Republican Party through Education and Activism!

Meeting Date: Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009
Meeting Time: social hour begins at 5:30pm, meeting starts at 6:30pm
Meeting Location: Club M @ Hamburger Mary’s, 700 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203 [map] — Our own private bar! Entrance on the NorthEast corner of the building.

***Please be sure to join the DMYR Group and RSVP for this event on Facebook! And come hungry, as Mary’s has the best burgers in town!!***

"The Big List": 2010 State House And Senate Races

2009-06-22T11:01:00.002-06:00

Jeremy Pelzer (formerly of PolitickerCO and 5280) has a complete rundown of announced, projected, and speculative candidates for Colorado House and Senate in 2010 (to be continuously updated):

2010 House Candidates

2010 Senate Candidates

Jeremy's blog Mile High Politics is sure to be a key source for political news for 2010, so be sure to bookmark it and check back frequently.

Pre-ATF Party: Freedom Underground - Nanny State Policy Panel; Liberty On The Rocks BBQ

2009-06-18T20:22:00.000-06:00

Freedom Underground - Nanny State Policy Panel

Friday, June 19, 2009

The Warwick Hotel, (The former Playboy Club) 1776 Grant Street, Denver, CO

***Don’t forget to sign up for the ATF Party the next day!***

Listen to Jon Caldara and Amy Oliver talk nannyism, the ATF party, and this great panel event!

Agenda

11:00a.m. — Registration

11:30a.m. — Lunch

Keynote Speaker: David Martosko, Center for Consumer Freedom

1:00p.m. — Morality and Philosophy of Nannyism

Panelists:

Radley Balko, TheAgitator.com and Reason Magazine

David Harsanyi, author of the Nanny State and syndicated columnist

David Kopel, Independence Institute Research Director

2:15p.m. — Economics of Nannyism: Sin Taxes and Litigation

Panelists:

Terry Gallagher, President of Smoker Friendly

Jordan Lipp, attorney Davis Graham & Stubbs and of the Colorado Civil Justice Leage.

Linda Gorman, Independence Institute Health Care Policy Center Director

3:30p.m. — Break

3:45p.m. — Fighting Nannyism:

Panelists:

Andrew Boucher, Boucher Strategies and NoCoPolitics.com

David Martosko, Center for Consumer Freedom

Andrew Breitbart, The DrudgeReport, Breitbart.com and Big Hollywood

5:00p.m. — Break

6:00p.m. – Dinner

Keynote Speaker: Andrew Breitbart, The DrudgeReport, Breitbart.com and Big Hollywood

8:00 p.m. – Cocktails & Cigars

This is a can’t miss event! Give us a call @ 303.279.6536 or RSVP online here to reserve your spot!

Liberty on the Rocks BBQ!

Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009
Time: 1:00pm - 4:00pm
Location: Washington Park
Street: Corner of Franklin and Virginia
City/Town: Denver, CO

Email: amanda@libertyontherocks.org

Location - Picnic Spot One at Wash Park next to the fire station (corner of Franklin and Virginia). There is plenty of free on-street parking.

Join others who love freedom for a fun in the sun day at the park!

BYOB - NO GLASS!!

There will be hamburgers, hot dogs, chips and other snacks provided. We will have water and soda, but if you'd like to drink, please bring your own alcohol. And be sure it's not glass - park rules!

There will also be a bake sale to raise money for the organization - so come with your sweet tooth!

We will have games to play, lunch and snacks to munch on and as always, great conversations! Come on out to Washington Park on Sunday, June 14th to network, make friends, eat BBQ lunch and have a great time!

Hope to see you there!

Fiery MEP Daniel Hannan In Denver

2009-06-18T14:37:00.003-06:00

The Honor of Your Presence is Requested for a Special Evening With
MEP Daniel Hannan
Friday, June 26, 2009
Cocktail reception 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
Grant-Humphreys Mansion
770 Pennsylvania Street, Denver, CO 80203

Daniel Hannan is a writer and journalist, and has been Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999. He has written eight books on European policy, speaks French and Spanish and is author of The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain

Hannan has recently risen to fame in the U.S. after his fiery speech addressing British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the European Parliament ("The devalued prime minister of a devalued government.")

RSVP REQUIRED!

Hannan skewers Brown:

R Block Party Family BBQ

2009-06-17T17:20:00.000-06:00

PLEASE JOIN

THURSDAY JUNE 18

SEE ATTACHMENT FOR DETAILS

We invite you to join us at this casual event for Republican fellowship and to meet some of the candidates and elected officials including Ryan Frazier, Cleve Tidwell, Dan Maes, Walker Stapleton, Leondray Gholston and others.

This is a kid-friendly event and we hope you choose to bring our future voting block!

RSVP’s are greatly appreciated, but not necessary. Drop in anytime during the evening.

Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009
Time: 6:00 - 9:00 pm
Place: Dekoevend Park, Shelter C near the Goodson Rec Center

See you soon,
Nikki Mata
Lori Horn
Madelaine Rohan

E-mail rsvp or questions to:

http://www.blogger.com/rblockparty@comcast.net

Click to enlarge:

Denver International Airport Receives Nearly $500K In Farm Subsidies

2009-06-16T23:00:00.002-06:00

Who knew?

Over the course of 12 consecutive years beginning in 1995, Denver International Airport has managed to rake-in just under half-a-million dollars in commodity subsidies from the U.S. Federal farm program. The airport owns roughly 18-thousand acres of wheat fields adjacent to the main terminal property and runways. While the dollar amount represents a very small fraction of the overall farm subsidy program, the receipts of that money essentially constituted nothing more than a windfall for the airport, because the airport was immune to rising or falling wheat prices.

Todd Shepherd has the complete yearly break down of windfall subsidies received by DIA.

This is the type of story that will only be exposed by folks like Todd, investigative reporter at the Independence Institute and editor of CompleteColorado.com.

And if conservatives and libertarians are to regain any traction with the public they need to be doing more and more investigative reporting of this type, not just amateur punditry as is so often the case.

Socialized Medicine No Joke

2009-06-16T10:02:00.002-06:00

Liberty On The Rocks Red Rocks--Special Guest Tom Tancredo

2009-06-14T18:22:00.003-06:00

Liberty on the Rocks Red Rocks will be hosting special guest Tom Tancredo:

Look for us at Old Chicago (weather permitting, on the rooftop patio) at 145 Union Blvd, Lakewood, CO for happy hours (5:00 pm to 7:00 pm) on the 1st and 3rd Monday of the month! Mark your calendar for:

June 15, 2009

Drum roll . . . our very special guest will be …. former presidential candidate and congressman, Tom Tancredo!

This is only our sixth meet up and we have had a number of fun and interesting people show up. The pictures on our website, RedRocks.LibertyOnTheRocks.com, show just part of fun.

Jonah Goldberg On Liberal Fascism

2009-06-12T13:55:00.004-06:00

The bestselling book Liberal Fascism is now out in paperback.

Jonah discusses the ongoing necessity to push back against the Left's intentional misuse of the term for political purposes to bash conservatives and libertarians.

Betsy Markey On Health Care: A Tea Party Rally

2009-06-12T13:38:00.002-06:00

Fort Collins Tea Party organizers will urge CD-4 Rep. Betsy Markey to vote against President Barack Obama's plans for ~~socialized medicine~~ "government-run, single-payer health care" at noon on Saturday, June 13th at Washington Park behind the Fort Collins City Hall building.

Free People, Free Markets: The Foundations Of Liberty Course

2009-06-12T12:01:00.006-06:00

The Independence Institute is proud to offer a first-of-its-kind course on the moral and philosophical case for free market capitalism:

Free People, Free Markets: The Foundations of Liberty!

The class will take place on 5 Saturdays, from 9am to noon, starting June 27th and ending August 1st. (Skips July 4th).

This class is open to everyone. And you may obtain college credit through the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (Good for credit at CU-Boulder and CD-Denver).

The course makes the moral and philosophic case for free-market capitalism. One of the most important concepts of Western Civilization is the acquisition of property as an unalienable right. The course develops the relationship between economic liberty and political liberty. Participants learn the principles behind wealth-creation. They are introduced to the philosophy of the Austrian School of Economics and its connection to the founding ideas of the American experiment. Participants are awakened to their heritage of economic liberty. It will be more than worth your time.

Classes will meet once a week for five weeks, from 9-12 on Saturdays (skipping July 4). The course is designed for business and community leaders, college students, and the general public. If desired, you may obtain three college credits through the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs by paying the usual college per-credit fee.

Come if you love liberty. Come if you love collectivism, but need to understand the libertarian position. Come if you want to receive an inexpensive, thorough, and energetic exposure to the founding principles of economic and political liberty.

If you would like to register, please call 303-279-6536, or send an email to rsvp@i2i.org.

For more information and/or to register, go to
http://www.i2i.org/main/event.php?event_id=63.

Class fee is $75

FBI shuts down gun range, calls it "militia training camp"

2009-06-10T17:31:00.002-06:00

The FBI is investigating a Washington state gun range that is supposedly "serving as a militia training camp."

What is notable is that the range was shut down because of "violation of commercial zoning laws," although the gun range has been around for a while. The owner, Jim Faire, thinks it's because of Andrew Gray, a convicted felon who is now facing weapons and drug charges. An informant told the FBI that Gray was using Faire's range to fire rifles. Evidently Gray was worth watching because of his "history with anti-government groups."

The FBI felt compelled to raid Gray's storage units, where they found 21 firearms and 300 marijuana plants. Now Gray is out on bail, due to appear in court on Thursday.

Back to Jim Faire. He didn't catch Gray because he didn't have the means to do a background check on every customer, which is, of course, way over the top and has been secretly (and illegally) used as a means to keep information on gun owners and their firearms. I have been to a number of gun ranges and have only had to sign waivers saying that it isn't their fault if I shoot myself.

The FBI is also touting the informant's assertion that Faire's range is a "militia training center." Faire says that the word "militia" is merely a joke, thanks to his range being a member of the Appleseed Project, a program of the Revolutionary War Veterans Association that promotes a return to a nation of marksmen.

Faire's neighbors think that the FBI is being heavy-handed. What's the real reason that the FBI is cracking down? Could it be a repeat of the old Clinton administration's zeal for gun control? President Obama knows the lessons of Clinton's "assault weapons" ban, and is not eager to repeat them. But maybe his FBI heavies just can't help themselves.

RMA 2.0: Rocky Mtn Blogs Radio Show #30

2009-06-09T15:32:00.002-06:00

**Every Tuesday--next show June 9, 8:30 pm.

The Blog Talk Radio version of the Rocky Mountain Alliance. A weekly discussion about politics--national, state, and local--featuring RMA members bloggers led by featured host and producer Joshua Sharf, with rotating co-host duties from Ben DeGrow of Mount Virtus, Randy Ketner of Night Twister, and Michael Alcorn of Best Destiny.

June 9 lineup--Dan Maes, candidate for governor.

Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier On 9NEWS' "Your Show"

2009-06-08T11:14:00.004-06:00

Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier answered viewers' questions on 9NEWS' "Your Show" this past Sunday.

Frazier's GOP primary opponent Ken Buck appeared on the show in May.

D-Day 65th Anniversary

2009-06-06T12:07:00.004-06:00

BlackFive has an enormous D-Day blogburst roundup, with tons of great links.

Ben DeGrow has excerpts from General Dwight D. Eisenhower's D-Day charge and President Ronald Reagan's 40th anniversary commemoration.

President Barack Obama noted the passing of one Normandy veteran on the eve of the 65th anniversary of D-Day (h/t Mary):

Obama saluted the contributions of individual veterans of the Normandy landings, including one veteran, Jim Norene, who fought as a member of the 101st Airborne Division.

"Last night, after visiting this cemetery for one last time, he passed away in his sleep," the president said. "Jim was gravely ill when he left his home, and he knew that he might not return. But just as he did 65 years ago, he came anyway. May he now rest in peace with the boys he once bled with, and may his family always find solace in the heroism he showed here.

Hot Air commemorates the soldiers:

Usually we celebrate the great leaders when we reflect on World War II, but the anniversary of D-Day is a day to reflect on the heroes who clawed their way onto and off of the beaches in the face of withering fire, overwhelmed a truly evil regime, and set the stage for its destruction.

The Denver Post profiles an Army Diver and D-Day veteran.

20th Anniversary Of Tiananmen Square Massacre June 4, 1989

2009-06-04T10:26:00.003-06:00

The NYTimes has an extended feature on the "Tank Man" photos from June 4, 1989--including a never before published photograph of the unknown hero just before his encounter with the tanks near Tiananmen Square.

Here is the video:

Blog post from June 4, 2007--just after I returned from China:

A lone hero thwarts tanks deployed by the Chinese government, 1989.

Gateway Pundit has more photos and a roundup on the 18th anniversary.

A replica of the Goddess of Democracy statue erected in 1989 by protestors in Tiananmen Square and destroyed by the Chinese government June 4, 1989.

On Astroturfing--Or How Not To Make Friends On The Internet

2009-06-02T12:48:00.004-06:00

Earlier in the week, good friend and fellow blogger Rocky Mountain Right brought forward evidence that demonstrated a bad-faith, astroturfing campaign by or on behalf of the Cleve Tidwell for US Senate campaign.

Ben DeGrow provides additional examples of what appears to either be a hijacking of Tidwell's personal email address (unlikely) or a concerted effort to astroturf under a variety of fake names known as sockpuppetry. Numerous conservative/libertarian/GOP blogs have been pounded by "swarms" of purported Tidwell supporters, including the People's Press Collective.

Of course, this was bound to hit the media at some point, and today Lynn Bartels of the Post covered the brewing controversy:

A conservative blog this week accused Republican U.S. Senate candidate Cleve Tidwell of anonymously posting flattering comments about himself.

Tidwell said he had nothing to do with the posts, adding "as important as I'm sure these blogs are I don't get involved with them. I don't even read them."

The retired Denver businessman said today that when he questioned his campaign about the posts, an "enthusiastic" volunteer with access to his e-mail addresses admitted she "might have stepped over the line."

He declined to identify the volunteer, but said she has since quit the campaign.

The accusation against Tidwell was posted Monday by Anthony Surace, a 22-year-old student at Metropolitan State College who operates Rocky Mountain Right.

Gotta love the "rogue staffer" defense.

Tidwell earns himself no plaudits either for his backhanded dismissal of blogs in the Post story above even as he is scheduled to appear on the Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0 Blog Talk Radio Show tonight, and has attempted to cultivate relationships with bloggers for the past few months as the campaign began to swing into gear.

Look, campaigns and their surrogates--whether paid staffers or overzealous volunteers--are always welcome and indeed encouraged to promote their candidates in a friendly manner, without reverting to the use of astroturfing and sockpuppetry to give a veneer of widespread support online when in fact there may be little more than a handful of real supporters at this point in the primary. Not only does the concerted effort to deluge online straw polls and spam comment sections and email inboxes with regurgitated and misspelled testimonials shed a bad light on the campaign itself--and by extension, the candidate, whether or not he is directly involved or even knows that this type of behavior is taking place on his behalf--but betrays a basic lack of Internet-savvy that currently plagues many in the GOP.

Simply having a Twitter feed or a Facebook account does not constitute a campaign with "Web 2.0" capabilities. Those are merely tools for messaging and developing relationships with potential volunteers and fundraisers.

The gross misuse, however, of blogs and other Internet forums to "plant" support for a candidate while then accusing a blog of being "in the bag" for another candidate when that information comes to light is absurd. True grassroots movements rely on the activism of individuals who share a common goal or support a worthwhile candidate, and their efforts will show in the amount of money raised, the turnout for events hosted, and the number of votes cast in the primary. Faking such a grassroots movement--hence the term astroturfing--reveals the paucity of support for this or any other candidate relying on such tactics.

Ken Buck, Cleve Tidwell, and Ryan Frazier all have campaigns and will be afforded plenty of opportunities to make their strongest case for their own candidacies. For his part, Frazier has extended multiple opportunities to this blogger to chat, conduct interviews, and attend events. Tidwell has agreed to appear on the RMA Radio Show this evening to make his case. Buck will be given similar opportunities, and is indeed welcome to contact this blog or any other in the RMA/PPC community for an interview or an appearance on the radio show as well.

The bottom line? No one likes to be played for fools, or have their own forum abused by even well-intentioned staffers or volunteers, rogue or otherwise.

You want to shout from the rooftops all day about Buck, Tidwell, or Frazier?

Good for you!

Now get your own damn blog and stop crapping on someone else's carpet.

RMA 2.0: Rocky Mtn Blogs Radio Show #29

2009-06-02T12:44:00.002-06:00

**Every Tuesday--next show June 2, 8:30 pm.

The Blog Talk Radio version of the Rocky Mountain Alliance. A weekly discussion about politics--national, state, and local--featuring RMA members bloggers led by featured host and producer Joshua Sharf, with rotating co-host duties from Ben DeGrow of Mount Virtus, Randy Ketner of Night Twister, and Michael Alcorn of Best Destiny.

June 2 lineup--Gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes and Senate candidate Cleve Tidwell will join RMA to discuss their respective campaigns.

May 26 lineup--GOP political consultant Patrick Davis and Independence Institute analyst Jessica Corry.

May 19 lineup--State Rep. Kent Lambert and a review of the 2009 Colorado Legislature.

May 12 lineup--At 8:45, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck, and at 9:30, Colorado Secretary of State candidate Scott Gessler

May 5 lineup--Blogger Ken Marrero, of Tennessee’s Blue Collar Muse.

April 28 lineup--Walker Stapleton, candidate for Colorado State Treasurer.

April 21 lineup--Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado from 8:45-9:15pm to discuss judicial accountability and retention of judges on the Colorado Supreme Court in 2010.

April 14 lineup--Brian Campbell discusses the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party rally in Denver and the movement in general, and Kate Melvin dishes on the showdown between the Independence Institute and CU over their budget and administrator salaries.

April 7 lineup--In an excellent solo hosting gig, Ben DeGrow reviewed the heated Fort Collins City Council race with co-host Randy Ketner, spoke with J.J. Ament, who is considering a run for state treasurer, and discussed parental rights and homeschooling with Marya DeGrow of the Independence Institute.

March 31 lineup--Nancy Doty talks about a potential run for Secretary of State, and DU law professor Robert Hardaway on HB1299, the bill to replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote.

March 24 lineup--we review of the recent state GOP organizational meeting, where Dick Wadhams was reelected as state chair, and Leondray Gholston was elected vice chair after three rounds of voting with Boulder County GOP chair Scott Starin, and David K. Williams, co-founder of the Gadsden Society of Colorado.

March 17 lineup--State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry was our first guest, followed by Nathan Chambers, candidate for Colorado Republican Party state vice chair.

March 10 lineup--From 8:45 to 9:15, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and at 9:30 Hassan Daioleslam.

March 3 lineup--two candidates for Fort Collins City Council, Aislinn Kottwitz (District 3) and Andrew Boucher (District 5), and Tom Stone, who is challenging Dick Wadhams for state party chairmanship.

February 24 lineup--Evan Coyne Maloney of Indoctrinate U, whose film of the same name was shown at the inaugural Liberty on Film last Thursday, and Nadeem Esmail of the Fraser Institute, discussing the dangers of single-payer (socialized) medicine from first hand experience.

Indoctrinate U trailer:

Plus two special editions of RMA Radio--the Pork Roast/anti-stimulus rally edition from the steps of the state capitol, as well as extensive coverage of the Larimer County Lincoln Day dinner.

February 17 lineup--Denver-based political activist Chris Maj, also an affiliate of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and a look back to today's anti-stimulus/pig roast rally at the state capitol.

February 10 lineup--State Rep. Cory Gardner (R-63), probable candidate in the CD-4 GOP primary, and Leondray Gholston, Republican activist and candidate for state GOP vice-chair.

February 3 lineup--Daveed Gartenstein-Ross from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Mike Saccone of the Grand Junction Sentinel.

January 27--Guests included elections expert Jan Tyler and State Sen. Greg Brophy.

January 20--Guests included Todd Shepherd, Independence Institute, and Mark Hillman, Colorado Republican National Committeeman.

January 13--State Rep. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango (HD 59) and State Senator Mike Kopp, SD 22, R-Littleton.

January 6--CU Regent Tom Lucero, chairman of the successful Amendment 54 campaign and a candidate for CD 4 in 2010.

December 30--RMA took a look back at a dismal year in their 2008 year-in-review.

December 23--Joshua and fellow commentators (including yours truly) hosted Jim Pfaff of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Opinion Times. Pfaff discussed the AFP Colorado report "Keeping Colorado Competitive" and bridging the Christian/libertarian gap.

On December 16 we hosted State Rep. Kevin Lundberg (District 49), and discussed the Salazar appointment as the Secretary of the Interior in the Obama cabinet.

The December 12 edition featured Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier.

Complete list of guests featured on RMA Radio can be found here.

**Bookmark the new RMA Radio home page, with embedded player and calendar of upcoming shows and featured guests.

Stream the show live, or play/download the podcast at your convenience.

I'll update co-host and guest info for each episode as it becomes available. Stay tuned . . .

RMA's shows are archived--if you missed any of them, be sure to check out the archive page to stream or download, or scroll down this page a bit, for the embedded archive player.

Ryan Frazier At R Block Party

2009-05-31T19:33:00.002-06:00

VP Biden Town Hall Ticket Snafu

2009-05-26T12:21:00.003-06:00

Clueless Joe Biden's "town hall" had ticket issues this morning:

Coloradans who dutifully lined up at the Crowne Plaza Hotel downtown this morning got a rude shock when they were told the tickets to see Vice President Joe Biden in Denver this afternoon were gone before the give-away was supposed to begin.

But for some, there was a happy ending.

Biden's office had said that members of the public who wanted to see the veep speak at 2 p.m. town hall at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science could go to the downtown hotel at 9 a.m. to get tickets on a first-come, first-served basis.

Apparently, those who arrived earlier than 9 a.m. were served first, leaving no tickets for anyone else.
. . .
Jay Carney, spokesman for Biden, said there was "an innocent jumping of the gun" on the part of some advance staffers. People were already lined up before 9 a.m., and so the staffers started handing out tickets.

Carney said the room where Biden was speaking only held 180, and he estimated there were only a little over 30 tickets that were available to the general public.

Not much of a "town hall" is it when only 30 tickets are available to the general public?

And this was to be a town hall about the "middle class"--built through a "green economy."

RMA 2.0: Rocky Mtn Blogs Radio Show #28

2009-05-26T09:39:00.003-06:00

**Every Tuesday--next show May 26, 8:30 pm.

The Blog Talk Radio version of the Rocky Mountain Alliance. A weekly discussion about politics--national, state, and local--featuring RMA members bloggers led by featured host and producer Joshua Sharf, with rotating co-host duties from Ben DeGrow of Mount Virtus, Randy Ketner of Night Twister, and Michael Alcorn of Best Destiny.

May 26 lineup--GOP political consultant Patrick Davis and Independence Institute analyst Jessica Corry.

May 19 lineup--State Rep. Kent Lambert and a review of the 2009 Colorado Legislature.

May 12 lineup--At 8:45, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck, and at 9:30, Colorado Secretary of State candidate Scott Gessler

May 5 lineup--Blogger Ken Marrero, of Tennessee’s Blue Collar Muse.

April 28 lineup--Walker Stapleton, candidate for Colorado State Treasurer.

April 21 lineup--Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado from 8:45-9:15pm to discuss judicial accountability and retention of judges on the Colorado Supreme Court in 2010.

April 14 lineup--Brian Campbell discusses the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party rally in Denver and the movement in general, and Kate Melvin dishes on the showdown between the Independence Institute and CU over their budget and administrator salaries.

April 7 lineup--In an excellent solo hosting gig, Ben DeGrow reviewed the heated Fort Collins City Council race with co-host Randy Ketner, spoke with J.J. Ament, who is considering a run for state treasurer, and discussed parental rights and homeschooling with Marya DeGrow of the Independence Institute.

March 31 lineup--Nancy Doty talks about a potential run for Secretary of State, and DU law professor Robert Hardaway on HB1299, the bill to replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote.

March 24 lineup--we review of the recent state GOP organizational meeting, where Dick Wadhams was reelected as state chair, and Leondray Gholston was elected vice chair after three rounds of voting with Boulder County GOP chair Scott Starin, and David K. Williams, co-founder of the Gadsden Society of Colorado.

March 17 lineup--State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry was our first guest, followed by Nathan Chambers, candidate for Colorado Republican Party state vice chair.

March 10 lineup--From 8:45 to 9:15, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and at 9:30 Hassan Daioleslam.

March 3 lineup--two candidates for Fort Collins City Council, Aislinn Kottwitz (District 3) and Andrew Boucher (District 5), and Tom Stone, who is challenging Dick Wadhams for state party chairmanship.

February 24 lineup--Evan Coyne Maloney of Indoctrinate U, whose film of the same name was shown at the inaugural Liberty on Film last Thursday, and Nadeem Esmail of the Fraser Institute, discussing the dangers of single-payer (socialized) medicine from first hand experience.

Indoctrinate U trailer:

Plus two special editions of RMA Radio--the Pork Roast/anti-stimulus rally edition from the steps of the state capitol, as well as extensive coverage of the Larimer County Lincoln Day dinner.

February 17 lineup--Denver-based political activist Chris Maj, also an affiliate of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and a look back to today's anti-stimulus/pig roast rally at the state capitol.

February 10 lineup--State Rep. Cory Gardner (R-63), probable candidate in the CD-4 GOP primary, and Leondray Gholston, Republican activist and candidate for state GOP vice-chair.

February 3 lineup--Daveed Gartenstein-Ross from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Mike Saccone of the Grand Junction Sentinel.

January 27--Guests included elections expert Jan Tyler and State Sen. Greg Brophy.

January 20--Guests included Todd Shepherd, Independence Institute, and Mark Hillman, Colorado Republican National Committeeman.

January 13--State Rep. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango (HD 59) and State Senator Mike Kopp, SD 22, R-Littleton.

January 6--CU Regent Tom Lucero, chairman of the successful Amendment 54 campaign and a candidate for CD 4 in 2010.

December 30--RMA took a look back at a dismal year in their 2008 year-in-review.

December 23--Joshua and fellow commentators (including yours truly) hosted Jim Pfaff of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Opinion Times. Pfaff discussed the AFP Colorado report "Keeping Colorado Competitive" and bridging the Christian/libertarian gap.

On December 16 we hosted State Rep. Kevin Lundberg (District 49), and discussed the Salazar appointment as the Secretary of the Interior in the Obama cabinet.

The December 12 edition featured Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier.

Complete list of guests featured on RMA Radio can be found here.

**Bookmark the new RMA Radio home page, with embedded player and calendar of upcoming shows and featured guests.

Stream the show live, or play/download the podcast at your convenience.

I'll update co-host and guest info for each episode as it becomes available. Stay tuned . . .

RMA's shows are archived--if you missed any of them, be sure to check out the archive page to stream or download, or scroll down this page a bit, for the embedded archive player.

Unidine: If Government Ran Restaurants (Like Universal Health Care)

2009-05-21T11:06:00.003-06:00

(h/t Ken) Imagine the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld, only worse--run by the government--"No choice for you!":

Let Colorado Choose: Blogger Memo To NRSC

2009-05-20T13:35:00.005-06:00

Ben DeGrow nails it--and quite succinctly, I might add: memo to National Republican Senatorial Committee--let Colorado Republicans decide.

We don't need the NRSC to determine, Florida-style, who the GOP nomination for US Senate will be in 2010.

Bloggers from around the country are circulating a petition (click for additional signatories):

Dear Senator Cornyn,

We the undersigned believe that the National Republican Senatorial Committee should be committed to serving ALL the members of the Republican Party.

Additionally, the NRSC should be focused on defeating Democrats, not Republicans. Towards that end, we believe it was completely inappropriate for the NRSC to endorse a candidate in the Florida primary race.

Therefore, we request that both you and the NRSC alter your position on the Florida Senate race, maintain neutrality, and promise to spend no money directly or indirectly in that race.

Sincerely yours,

El Presidente
Colorado
Slapstick Politics
People's Press Collective
Rocky Mountain Alliance 2.0

The Colorado GOP welcomes a frank, honest, and open debate between the three announced candidates--Ryan Frazier, Ken Buck, and Cleve Tidwell.

And next August, Colorado Republicans will decide who they wish to see battle Sen. Michael Bennet in the general election. Not party insiders, national operatives, or yes, the NRSC.

**My position on this petition includes only my personal blog, and extends to my affiliations elsewhere insofar as I participate in those collaborations, and is not meant as the position of either PPC or RMA 2.0.

RMA 2.0: Rocky Mtn Blogs Radio Show #27

2009-05-19T14:37:00.003-06:00

**Every Tuesday--next show May 19, 8:30 pm.

The Blog Talk Radio version of the Rocky Mountain Alliance. A weekly discussion about politics--national, state, and local--featuring RMA members bloggers led by featured host and producer Joshua Sharf, with rotating co-host duties from Ben DeGrow of Mount Virtus, Randy Ketner of Night Twister, and Michael Alcorn of Best Destiny.

May 19 lineup--State Rep. Kent Lambert and a review of the 2009 Colorado Legislature.

May 12 lineup--At 8:45, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck, and at 9:30, Colorado Secretary of State candidate Scott Gessler

May 5 lineup--Blogger Ken Marrero, of Tennessee’s Blue Collar Muse.

April 28 lineup--Walker Stapleton, candidate for Colorado State Treasurer.

April 21 lineup--Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado from 8:45-9:15pm to discuss judicial accountability and retention of judges on the Colorado Supreme Court in 2010.

April 14 lineup--Brian Campbell discusses the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party rally in Denver and the movement in general, and Kate Melvin dishes on the showdown between the Independence Institute and CU over their budget and administrator salaries.

April 7 lineup--In an excellent solo hosting gig, Ben DeGrow reviewed the heated Fort Collins City Council race with co-host Randy Ketner, spoke with J.J. Ament, who is considering a run for state treasurer, and discussed parental rights and homeschooling with Marya DeGrow of the Independence Institute.

March 31 lineup--Nancy Doty talks about a potential run for Secretary of State, and DU law professor Robert Hardaway on HB1299, the bill to replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote.

March 24 lineup--we review of the recent state GOP organizational meeting, where Dick Wadhams was reelected as state chair, and Leondray Gholston was elected vice chair after three rounds of voting with Boulder County GOP chair Scott Starin, and David K. Williams, co-founder of the Gadsden Society of Colorado.

March 17 lineup--State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry was our first guest, followed by Nathan Chambers, candidate for Colorado Republican Party state vice chair.

March 10 lineup--From 8:45 to 9:15, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and at 9:30 Hassan Daioleslam.

March 3 lineup--two candidates for Fort Collins City Council, Aislinn Kottwitz (District 3) and Andrew Boucher (District 5), and Tom Stone, who is challenging Dick Wadhams for state party chairmanship.

February 24 lineup--Evan Coyne Maloney of Indoctrinate U, whose film of the same name was shown at the inaugural Liberty on Film last Thursday, and Nadeem Esmail of the Fraser Institute, discussing the dangers of single-payer (socialized) medicine from first hand experience.

Indoctrinate U trailer:

Plus two special editions of RMA Radio--the Pork Roast/anti-stimulus rally edition from the steps of the state capitol, as well as extensive coverage of the Larimer County Lincoln Day dinner.

February 17 lineup--Denver-based political activist Chris Maj, also an affiliate of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and a look back to today's anti-stimulus/pig roast rally at the state capitol.

February 10 lineup--State Rep. Cory Gardner (R-63), probable candidate in the CD-4 GOP primary, and Leondray Gholston, Republican activist and candidate for state GOP vice-chair.

February 3 lineup--Daveed Gartenstein-Ross from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Mike Saccone of the Grand Junction Sentinel.

January 27--Guests included elections expert Jan Tyler and State Sen. Greg Brophy.

January 20--Guests included Todd Shepherd, Independence Institute, and Mark Hillman, Colorado Republican National Committeeman.

January 13--State Rep. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango (HD 59) and State Senator Mike Kopp, SD 22, R-Littleton.

January 6--CU Regent Tom Lucero, chairman of the successful Amendment 54 campaign and a candidate for CD 4 in 2010.

December 30--RMA took a look back at a dismal year in their 2008 year-in-review.

December 23--Joshua and fellow commentators (including yours truly) hosted Jim Pfaff of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Opinion Times. Pfaff discussed the AFP Colorado report "Keeping Colorado Competitive" and bridging the Christian/libertarian gap.

On December 16 we hosted State Rep. Kevin Lundberg (District 49), and discussed the Salazar appointment as the Secretary of the Interior in the Obama cabinet.

The December 12 edition featured Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier.

Complete list of guests featured on RMA Radio can be found here.

**Bookmark the new RMA Radio home page, with embedded player and calendar of upcoming shows and featured guests.

Stream the show live, or play/download the podcast at your convenience.

I'll update co-host and guest info for each episode as it becomes available. Stay tuned . . .

RMA's shows are archived--if you missed any of them, be sure to check out the archive page to stream or download, or scroll down this page a bit, for the embedded archive player.

Upcoming Events--May 2009 Edition (Continuously Updated)

2009-05-17T11:46:00.002-06:00

Please Join
R Block Party
to continue our discussion about the future of the Republican Party in Colorado
strategies to take Colorado back

Who are the Progressives and what are we up against?
Our strengths and how to use them
Building our infrastructure

**********************************
join us in welcoming

Ryan Frazier, Aurora City Councilman and candidate for US Senate
on our advantages and how we can win

Isaac Smith, former intern for the Bighorn Center
on exposing the Progressive movement in Colorado

**********************************
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
6:30 pm mingle, 7:00 pm start

Glenmoor Country Club
110 Glenmoor Drive
Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113

please feel free to forward this invitation to any friends or acquaintances that might be interested in joining us!

RSVP
rblockparty@comcast.net
Nikki Mata, 303-770-5533
Lori Horn, 303-777-3600

hosted by: Lori Horn, Susie McKinney, Madelaine Rohan, & Nikki Mata

Graduation 2009: Pomp And Circumstance

2009-05-15T00:32:00.001-06:00

For obvious reasons this time of year:

"Principled" And "Solutions-Driven," US Senate Candidate Ryan Frazier Speaks Out

2009-05-14T14:00:00.001-06:00

(Co-authored by El Presidente and Ben DeGrow)

We were privileged with the opportunity last Saturday to sit down and conduct an exclusive half-hour two-on-one interview with Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ryan Frazier (Frazier's two GOP primary contenders are Weld County district attorney Ken Buck and businessman Cleve Tidwell). The conversation was wide-ranging and informative. We left with a clearer picture of the candidate's vision and the campaign's direction.

We began by bringing up a recent article in The Hill that portrayed Frazier as part of a "band of centrists", and asked him what he thought of the characterization. He responded: "I'm Ryan Frazier, and I do what I believe to be right. I've never been much for labels.... I'll leave the labeling to the press." Though he did choose the word "principled" to describe his philosophy, he was fairly adamant about not being categorized into a box.

Nor did Frazier express any dismay that Beltway Republican Party bigwigs have taken a wait-and-see approach to his candidacy (all the better in light of NRSC's recent Florida endorsement): "I'm not really concerned about folks in Washington DC. I never expected to be their number one choice. As a matter of fact, I think that's why our candidacy can be so significant. Because we're not the establishment. We are a grassroots campaign.... I'm not as concerned about whether they think I'm a top choice."

Frazier added that his coalition building is anything but traditional for a Republican candidate in Colorado, as he stressed the bottom-line focus of his early campaign strategy: "It's building the base, period. That's my goal. And I'm not talking about just purely a Republican base. I have to build a Colorado base of support that spans Republicans, unaffiliateds, and Democrats....I'm going to take a very non-traditional route toward building the base." That route will be premised on “ideas and specific solutions” that rise above party affiliation.

Frazier also elaborated on the nature true grassroots movements in leading the resurgence of fiscally responsible, limited government, and individual freedom-inspired candidates nationwide. “What they represent is a movement, something that the center-right has not seen in some time,” Frazier explained. He continued, “This movement is critical to my campaign . . . but also critical to restoring Republican fiscal responsibility, and move this country in a better direction.”

Now, certainly, Frazier would prefer to be the candidate representing the Republican Party in challenging Michael Bennet in 2010. But in any case, he laid out a pretty clear, 3-point roadmap of the incumbent appointee's clearest weaknesses:

Education: In particular, Michael Bennet's abandonment of disadvantaged kids by throwing the D.C. voucher program under the bus (more recently, Bennet told Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll that the program is a "here today, gone tomorrow" argument).

EFCA, also known as the union card-check bill. Of course, Bennet's indecisiveness on this issue has approached legendary status. Frazier noted that no matter what happens going forward, Bennet has already identified himself by his long delay in making a decision on this "extremely poor policy".

"He's been going around the state touting Obama's budget as if somehow it's the best thing since peanut butter & jelly sandwiches." Frazier added that this clearly aligns the Democrat incumbent with "fiscal irresponsibility" and mounting deficits and debt.

Frazier touched on other specific issues: "I believe that in a Republican primary the issue of immigration will play a role.... That said, ultimately only practical solutions to the issue of immigration I think will win the day." Among the ideas he touted were scrapping the 3-year and 10-year rules for re-entry to create an incentive for voluntary self-deportation, and establishing a non-immigrant visa for service workers. He recognized that the issue is a strong suit for primary opponent Ken Buck, but is counting on a move toward smart solutions over heated rhetoric to hold his own.

As to the big deal that has been made out of his apparently unorthodox views on social issues, Frazier had a couple important things to say. First, he denied rumors that his views were anything but "pro-life". While we didn't have time to dig deeper into more specific issues in the abortion debate, he did state: "When it comes to the issue of life, I'm very supportive of strict constructionist judges....You can argue about Roe v Wade and the outcome. But if you look at it just on the basis of the law, the fact is the Constitution is silent on the matter, and as such the Tenth Amendment should apply."

Second, he stood firm on his position in defense of granting employee benefits to same-sex couples. "It doesn't mean I'm abandoning my principles." As he also stands against the idea of gay marriage, we don't see this position as being any sort of deal-breaker with the vast majority of conservatives in Colorado.

When asked about the importance of getting his early strong endorsement from the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Colorado -- very early, and the first for anyone in the race -- Frazier said: "Their support early on is instrumental to 1) continue to build support and 2) to raise the money it's going to take to be competitive to win." Frazier earned the endorsement not just for the contested Republican primary, but for US Senate, period. The association of businessmen and women on the western side of Colorado believe Frazier is a pro-business, free market candidate that will "aid in returning our economy to an emergent, healthy and vibrant environment," and will not simply be "a no vote."

Frazier did observe from his early fundraising calls, however, that the state of the economy has affected the amounts certain donors traditionally have been able to give. The race may require 20 million dollars to win, but a less than optimal fiscal climate might skew those numbers. On the other hand, Frazier noted, the numbers could rise if the race is perceived as strongly competitive (a necessary retention for Democrats, a viable pickup for Republicans) and is pushed into the top 2 or 3 Senate races nationwide in terms of visibility and swing potential as the “eyes of the nation are focused on Colorado.”

As far as the economy's possible effect on the broader success of his campaign themes and electoral chances, Frazier adroitly noted: "Certainly there are going to be those if the economy gets better they're going to say the Democrats are in charge when it got better. But I would always remind people that when the Democrats were in control it got worse, as well. It's not a matter of the Democrats, it's a matter of confidence by the American people that the economy can and will get better tomorrow than it is today."

“I believe it will come down to this in 2010—who has the best ideas and who can connect with the people—these will ultimately be the deciding factors,” concluded Frazier.

Frazier closed out our talk with an emphasis on the fact that he is "solutions-driven", clearly a theme that appeared throughout his answers. To address what keeps him going on the rigorous campaign schedule that hampers his business and family commitments, he eloquently summed up the case for his candidacy: "I do want to see a better Colorado and a better America where our taxes are low, where our rights are protected, our Constitution is upheld, and our country is defended. Those are the things that motivate me."

Undoubtedly, the young Aurora city councilman, entrepreneur, and father of three has a lot of work cut out for him, but as he begins to make a national impression, Ryan Frazier is on track to make a strong showing.

Thanks to Ryan for making time, and thanks to those who helped set up the meeting.

Colorado's Ryan Frazier: A New Face For GOP

2009-05-13T17:18:00.005-06:00

Whereas folks in the know have already taken notice of Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier's ascent in Colorado politics, he is just beginning to catch the attention of those in DC:

Ryan Frazier is not a well-known entity in Washington political circles.

But that may change soon -- and if it does, the Republican Party may have a new face to showcase in 2010 and beyond.

Frazier, a 31-year-old African-American city council member from Aurora, Colo., is running for the US Senate next year. He offers youth and diversity to a party that's lacking in both these days.
. . .
"Principles mean something, principles help guide decisions. At the same time, you know, we need to apply, I think, Reagan's 80-20 Rule," he said.

Frazier talks gubernatorial appointments, illegal immigration, and gay marriage/domestic partnership benefits.

(Full video, interview around 3 minutes in):

The Weekly Standard has also taken a look at Frazier, and notes his address to the Tea Party in Grand Junction on April 15.

RMA 2.0: Rocky Mtn Blogs Radio Show #26

2009-05-12T10:51:00.002-06:00

**Every Tuesday--next show May 12, 8:30 pm.

The Blog Talk Radio version of the Rocky Mountain Alliance. A weekly discussion about politics--national, state, and local--featuring RMA members bloggers led by featured host and producer Joshua Sharf, with rotating co-host duties from Ben DeGrow of Mount Virtus, Randy Ketner of Night Twister, and Michael Alcorn of Best Destiny.

May 12 lineup--At 8:45, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck, and at 9:30, Colorado Secretary of State candidate Scott Gessler

May 5 lineup--Blogger Ken Marrero, of Tennessee’s Blue Collar Muse.

April 28 lineup--Walker Stapleton, candidate for Colorado State Treasurer.

April 21 lineup--Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado from 8:45-9:15pm to discuss judicial accountability and retention of judges on the Colorado Supreme Court in 2010.

April 14 lineup--Brian Campbell discusses the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party rally in Denver and the movement in general, and Kate Melvin dishes on the showdown between the Independence Institute and CU over their budget and administrator salaries.

April 7 lineup--In an excellent solo hosting gig, Ben DeGrow reviewed the heated Fort Collins City Council race with co-host Randy Ketner, spoke with J.J. Ament, who is considering a run for state treasurer, and discussed parental rights and homeschooling with Marya DeGrow of the Independence Institute.

March 31 lineup--Nancy Doty talks about a potential run for Secretary of State, and DU law professor Robert Hardaway on HB1299, the bill to replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote.

March 24 lineup--we review of the recent state GOP organizational meeting, where Dick Wadhams was reelected as state chair, and Leondray Gholston was elected vice chair after three rounds of voting with Boulder County GOP chair Scott Starin, and David K. Williams, co-founder of the Gadsden Society of Colorado.

March 17 lineup--State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry was our first guest, followed by Nathan Chambers, candidate for Colorado Republican Party state vice chair.

March 10 lineup--From 8:45 to 9:15, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and at 9:30 Hassan Daioleslam.

March 3 lineup--two candidates for Fort Collins City Council, Aislinn Kottwitz (District 3) and Andrew Boucher (District 5), and Tom Stone, who is challenging Dick Wadhams for state party chairmanship.

February 24 lineup--Evan Coyne Maloney of Indoctrinate U, whose film of the same name was shown at the inaugural Liberty on Film last Thursday, and Nadeem Esmail of the Fraser Institute, discussing the dangers of single-payer (socialized) medicine from first hand experience.

Indoctrinate U trailer:

Plus two special editions of RMA Radio--the Pork Roast/anti-stimulus rally edition from the steps of the state capitol, as well as extensive coverage of the Larimer County Lincoln Day dinner.

February 17 lineup--Denver-based political activist Chris Maj, also an affiliate of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and a look back to today's anti-stimulus/pig roast rally at the state capitol.

February 10 lineup--State Rep. Cory Gardner (R-63), probable candidate in the CD-4 GOP primary, and Leondray Gholston, Republican activist and candidate for state GOP vice-chair.

February 3 lineup--Daveed Gartenstein-Ross from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Mike Saccone of the Grand Junction Sentinel.

January 27--Guests included elections expert Jan Tyler and State Sen. Greg Brophy.

January 20--Guests included Todd Shepherd, Independence Institute, and Mark Hillman, Colorado Republican National Committeeman.

January 13--State Rep. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango (HD 59) and State Senator Mike Kopp, SD 22, R-Littleton.

January 6--CU Regent Tom Lucero, chairman of the successful Amendment 54 campaign and a candidate for CD 4 in 2010.

December 30--RMA took a look back at a dismal year in their 2008 year-in-review.

December 23--Joshua and fellow commentators (including yours truly) hosted Jim Pfaff of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Opinion Times. Pfaff discussed the AFP Colorado report "Keeping Colorado Competitive" and bridging the Christian/libertarian gap.

On December 16 we hosted State Rep. Kevin Lundberg (District 49), and discussed the Salazar appointment as the Secretary of the Interior in the Obama cabinet.

The December 12 edition featured Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier.

Complete list of guests featured on RMA Radio can be found here.

**Bookmark the new RMA Radio home page, with embedded player and calendar of upcoming shows and featured guests.

Stream the show live, or play/download the podcast at your convenience.

I'll update co-host and guest info for each episode as it becomes available. Stay tuned . . .

RMA's shows are archived--if you missed any of them, be sure to check out the archive page to stream or download, or scroll down this page a bit, for the embedded archive player.

Pueblo School 9th Grade Assignment: Illustrate "Act Of Terrorism"; Superintendent: Students "Misinterpreted" Assignment

2009-05-11T22:16:00.006-06:00

Touchy-feely multicultural nonsense? An poorly designed pedagogical experiment?

You be the judge:

A ninth grade history project at a high school in Pueblo was supposed to teach students about terrorism, but instead it outraged parents.

Gini Fischer says her daughter came home Thursday saying she had two minutes to come up with a plot for an act of terrorism.

Over 110 freshmen at Pueblo County High School were given the project.

The teacher claims the assignment was to illustrate an act of terrorism by a foreign government on American soil.

Fischer says, "To ask them to use their creative energies to come up with a plot for an act of terrorism is very ludicrous."

What's the over/under on the unnamed teacher's political affiliation?

The ridiculous assignment has the administrative types running for cover and claiming the students "misinterpreted" the teacher's intent:

District 70 Superintendent Dr. Dan Lere said students may have misinterpreted the assignment.

He says if a student, "actually did illustrate an act of terrorism that they might commit, let's say against the school, we've expelled students for that."

The school district has decided to collect the assignment from students and destroy them.

Wait, I thought the students "misinterpreted" the assignment? Why destroy them?

Even under the most favorable reading, an assignment that asks high school students to envision, illustrate, contemplate, or otherwise interpret an act of terrorism, especially one on American soil, should be handled with healthy dose of reasonability. Would an assignment of this type, considering terrorism domestically (as it appears this assignment called for) or anywhere else for that matter be considered reasonable? If so, under what conditions?

The superintendent begins by placing the blame on the students for a misunderstanding of the assignment, and yet the school district has seen fit to destroy the students' work.

Hmmm.

Union Goons' Alleged Intimidation At Event Attended By Sen. Michael Bennet Caught On Tape

2009-05-05T16:56:00.009-06:00

"You gotta delete that."

Michael Ramirez

From CompleteColorado.com, an update on the event attended by Sen. Michael Bennet where a GOP operative alleged intimidation by union members who forced him to delete the contents of a video shot at the event as a condition for leaving:

CompleteColorado.com is first to obtain and publish the full 911 calls made by GOP operative Matt Milner at a union event featuring Senator Michael Bennet.

On April 25th, Milner went to a meeting at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' Local 68 union hall on North Logan Street. Milner admits he was being paid by the Colorado Republican Party to video tape remarks by Democrat U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. However, Milner claims he was prevented from leaving the union hall of his own accord for a period of time after some union officials became interested in how much information Milner had recorded. Milner called 911 to report that he felt as though he was being intimidated.

The story was originally reported by Jessica Fender of the Denver Post.
. . .
"You gotta delete that." Milner responds, "I'm taking my camera with me," to which the unidentified voice apparently responds, "Well, just delete what you...taped."

The event appears to have been open to the public, and by all accounts, Milner had taped the event without incident until confronted as he tried to exit the venue.

From Fender's Post report:

State GOP aide Matt Milner dialed 911 because he said union organizers blocked his exit and demanded he erase a video recording of Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet on Saturday afternoon following a townhall meeting sponsored by the AFL-CIO.

Mike Cerbo, executive director of Colorado AFL-CIO, said Milner came looking for trouble, but he wasn't forced to erase the tape or barred from leaving. It's now a matter for the Adams County Sheriff's Office, where authorities Sunday confirmed that they received a complaint from Milner. Police also confirmed his Saturday emergency call.

"I feared for my safety. Period," the 25-year-old Milner said Sunday.

Neither Bennet nor his staff was present at the altercation, said both Milner and a representative for the senator.

Milner has been a familiar face at about a dozen official Bennet events. The state Republican Party confirmed that it pays him to shadow and videotape the freshman senator in a practice known as "tracking."

There was no reason to think Saturday's gathering at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' Local 68 union hall — billed as an "everyone's welcome" affair on the invitation — would vary from the typically uneventful routine. And for several hours it didn't, Milner said.

But Milner, with his tripod and video camera, garnered the attention of event organizers just as Bennet bid his adieu to hundreds of audience members, some of whom had grown passionate over politically tricky labor issues, such as the Employee Free Choice Act.

CompleteColorado.com also has audio of Milner's interview with local radio hosts, relating his impression of events, some of which appears to be clearly corroborated by the 9-11 audio.

This story should be considered "in development" as the investigation is still "active." Colorado law requires only one party give consent (no illegal wiretapping) in order to tape conversations, and appears to give new organizations the ability to record at "public," "newsworthy" events:

However, nothing in these statutes "shall be interpreted to prevent a news agency, or an employee thereof, from using the accepted tools and equipment of that news medium in the course of reporting or investigating a public and newsworthy event." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-305.

Should Milner's recording be in the clear (the event was touted as open--"everyone's welcome"), anyone demanding that he erase video as a condition of release can be considered "false imprisonment."

Sen. Bennet faced a tough crowd at the event. Are these thuggish tactics--employed by a Democrat constituency, big labor--indicative of what we as Coloradans should expect to influence a vote on EFCW, and a window into things to come with a Democrat win in 2010?

Confirmed! Conspiracy And Kool-Aid In McInnis Audio Flap

2009-05-04T12:17:00.003-06:00

Scott McInnis’ unforced error—reported extensively late last week—prompted a renewed interest in the nature of post-campaign finance reform verbal tap-dancing that candidates (especially potential candidates) must perform in order to skirt possible campaign violations. It has also raised concerns over what exactly being a “friend” or a “fan” or a “follower” of someone on a social networking site—in this case Facebook—really means, and if that “affiliation” constitutes an explicit or even implicit endorsement of the person(s) being followed (the GJ Sentinel alleges that is does).

For Ari Armstrong, the screwy laws that govern campaign language constitutes nothing more than censorship.

For Ben DeGrow, the Facebook evidence is not only weak but entirely meaningless, as quite a few individuals follow various and sundry groups or causes on Facebook merely to keep tabs, not as part of any formal endorsement or show of support.

That CompleteColorado.com’s own follow-up to the McInnis story includes screencaps of other prominent Coloradans, some of whom have been mentioned as part of McInnis’ team, as “followers” of the Draft Sen. Josh Penry page clearly bears this out (Sean Tonner, Monica Owens). This early in a primary session bloggers, like many others, will end up following all potential candidates in a given race simply because of the ability to gain information. This is most likely the reason that the GJ Sentinel itself appears in the list of “Draft Penry” supporters. This is probably also the same reason why Pols creator Jason Bane joined the Ryan Frazier page.

But all of this is just a diversion, according to ColoradoPols. There really is a much simpler solution.

Conspiracy!

According to the koolaid from Pols: Todd Shepherd and Justin Longo own CompleteColorado.com. They also both work for the Independence Institute. Todd refuses to disclose the source of the McInnis voice mail, but it is undoubtedly from a disgruntled Penry supporter, leaked to GOP-friendly media (it might have been faked, but McInnis himself confirmed the message was his). Sen. Penry appeared at the anti-stimulus “pork rally” in February, and aside from the “swastika guy” and Bush-Penry recession smear, is really nothing more than a minion from I.I. due to the fact that the institute’s logo appeared on a podium behind which Penry had given a short speech. Todd and Justin are both supporters of the “Draft Penry” Facebook group, and are therefore—given Penry’s I.I. association—clearly Penry insiders with an axe to grind against Scott McInnis. There is probably also a connection to 9/11 Truth, the Illuminati, Freemasons, the symbols at DIA, and global warming in there as well.

See I told you it was simpler!

Paging Robert Langdon . . .

What is really going on here are a couple things. Pols wishes to stoke a fire of resentment between possible Penry and McInnis camps, especially given the duo's own personal history (Penry was a staffer for McInnis). CompleteColorado.com has no axe to grind, and given its own investigative reporting accomplishments, would not have been an inappropriate venue to give the audio under any circumstances. Journalistic integrity was at stake. While the GJ Sentinel’s reporter isn’t guilty of any ethics violations, it is clear that his investigative reporting skills are, as well as an understanding of social networking, clearly lacking. Pols is only too willing too play “gotcha!” in an attempt to attack Penry and smear CC as nothing more than partisan and even intrapartisan hacks.

The only hackery here is the weak evidence provided by the GJ Sentinel and the lemming-like effluence emanating from Pols.

Evidence? What evidence? We need only blind accusations and ideologically-soothing conspiracy theories to carry us through the day!

"Both Ways" Bennet Looking Vulnerable In 2010

2009-04-27T17:30:00.002-06:00

The Denver Post has picked up on the troubles Gov. Bill Ritter and Sen. Michael Bennet will face going into the 2010 election.

They aren't the first to notice, especially in Sen. Bennet's case, what happens when vacillation over issues like EFCA (card check) is combined with weak poll numbers, as Ben DeGrow pointed out over a week ago.

Ritter's own indecision and weak governing has earned him a similar outlook for 2010.

ACLU Wants Change In Nudity Laws In Colorado For Naked Protesting

2009-04-26T13:53:00.006-06:00

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, the old saw goes.

The ACLU may be on to something here, as another form of automatic/zero-tolerance comes under fire:

The American Civil Liberties Union plans to lobby for changes to Colorado laws that require nude offenders to register as sex offenders, claiming the laws are unusually harsh.

"We are very concerned about the way in which the Colorado sex-offender registry is set up, resulting in sex-offender status for these kinds of activities," Judd Golden, who chairs the Boulder County chapter of the ACLU, told the Boulder Daily Camera.

The ACLU will host a public forum Tuesday called "Naked in Boulder." The forum will discuss whether nude offenders should be treated as "pranksters and protesters, or criminals and sex offenders."

Protesting in the nude is not something that Tea Party-goers will be doing anytime soon, as this remains exclusively within the domain of left-leaning organizations. But naked bike rides are hardly worthy of sex-offender registry punishments--eye bleach yes, but nothing more.

Boulder's DA provides the highlight of the article--when dealing with the issue of nudity in public, word choice is always important:

"We're dealing with a square peg in a round hole," Stan Garnett, who became Boulder County's district attorney shortly after the pumpkin running incident, told the Camera. "Most people would say people running down the mall with pumpkins on their heads may not be somebody who is at risk of becoming a sex offender in the future."

Heh.

Last year's Naked Bike Ride in Denver (NSFW, eye bleach warning).

Colorado "Zero Tolerance" Policy On Fake Guns Lifted, Discretion Left To Schools

2009-04-24T09:51:00.004-06:00

You may remember the story of Marie Morrow, a student who faced automatic expulsion from Cherry Creek schools for having drill team rifles props in her SUV on campus.

Thankfully, after the adults stepped in back in February, Morrow avoided expulsion.

But the "zero tolerance" policy that forced the hand of the school remained in place until this week:

When Marie Morrow was suspended from school for bringing in drill team rifle props, she used her days off to lobby state legislators to change the law.

Her story, first reported by 9NEWS, drew national attention.

On Tuesday, Morrow was watching as Gov. Bill Ritter signed a law giving schools discretion when it comes to fake guns on campus. They no longer will mean an automatic expulsion. Each school can decide what punishment fits the situation.

Cherry Creek Schools counted Morrow's six-day suspension as the required expulsion. She had the fake guns in her car for a young Marines drill team practice after school.

The incident won't affect her plans to attend the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.

Thankfully, a little bit of sanity and common sense has been restored to Colorado's schools following the knee-jerk reactions that stemmed from the Columbine tragedy 10 years ago this week. This legislation gives the discretion to the proper level of action--the local schools. The mindset that prompted the zero-tolerance policy has, however, not gone away:

Morrow's case isn't the first nor will it be the last where unintended consequences precipitated by poorly written, knee-jerk, zero-tolerance legislation affect the lives of those the law should actually protect.

Just remember this the next time someone says "there should be a law." The "cult of action" embraced by those who wish to protect people from themselves and deny others their liberty tend to produce half-baked, "feel-good" laws that legislators tout as "helping the situation."

Most of the time, they end up doing precisely the opposite.

Colorado Electoral College Debate--Democracy Vs. Republicanism: Popular Vote, Founding Fathers, And Fraud

2009-04-22T14:57:00.003-06:00

Ignoring the U.S. Constitution by doing an end-run around it (you know, by amendment), coming soon to a state near you--Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, and Hawaii have already passed this legislation.

The Independence Institute's "Independent Thinking" program delved into the controversial electoral college debate centered upon HB 1299, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, strongly opposed not only by bloggers and pundits but also The Denver Post and InDenverTimes.com (successor to the Rocky Mountain News):

Sen. Michael Bennet's First Reviews--A Mixed Bag

2009-04-22T10:39:00.003-06:00

Coloradans' support for President Barack Obama and Sen. Mark Udall may be slipping, but neither will face voters in 2010.

Sen. Michael Bennet, on the other hand, faces his first election test after having been appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter to fill a vacant Senate seat. Public Policy Polling's April 17-19 phone poll results are not that encouraging (pdf):

Three months into his appointment as a Senator, Michael Bennet isn’t making a strong positive impression on Colorado voters.

41% say they disapprove of his job performance so far, with 34% approving. 25% don’t have an opinion one way or the other. He is meeting with approval from 59% of Democrats but only 11% of Republicans, and his overall reviews from independents are negative as well, with 32% approving but 43% disapproving.

Bennet does lead three of his most mentioned possible Republican opponents next year in hypothetical match ups. He’s up 39-35 on Ryan Frazier, 40-34 on Ken Buck, and 41-34 on Josh Penry. He trails former Congressman Bob Beauprez 43-42.

There’s still some indication within the numbers that Hispanic voters might be angry that one of them was not appointed to replace Ken Salazar. Bennet’s spread with Hispanics is 36/45, much worse than Barack Obama’s 58/36 and one he’ll have to improve with that Democratic leaning demographic if he’s going to be reelected.

“These numbers for Michael Bennet are not very good,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “The good news for him is that he still hasn’t had the opportunity to define himself the way he wants to the voters in a campaign, and when he has the opportunity to do that next year he may fare better than he is now.”

The Rothenberg Political Report, on the other hand, moved Sen. Bennet into a "Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party" in a report updated on April 21.

FiveThirtyEight.com puts Bennet's seat in 10th place in likeliness to change hands in 2010 in its April update, and Chris Cillizza's "The Fix" at The Washington Post had nearly the same positioning in March's update (at #9).

Not a great start, but certainly not horrible either--and the eventual winner of the emerging GOP field will have his work cut out for him, given Bennet's early fundraising prowess.

Big questions remain for Bennet, however:
**Can he maintain his early fundraising juggernaut?

**Will continuing to waffle on major issues--ones like EFCA, cited consistently in the analsyses above--not only anger some segment of the potential power structure (labor unions vs. businesses), but prove accusations that Bennet, like his appointer Ritter, is ultimately indecisive?

**Will he able to build name recognition without also elevating his negatives (see previous question)?

**And will Bennet prove to be an effective campaigner and stump speaker, not only on the rubber chicken dinner circuit and $1000-a-plate galas but also on the campaign trail throughout the state?

Bennet's potential reelection hinges on a couple factors--how the state perceives him as an appointment (effectively a referendum on Ritter and Bennet simultaneously) and how well he has distinguished himself in office between this January and next November. While the Democrats want to push the idea that the Senate race is over as early as possible for fundraising/recruiting/turnout purposes while citing a "weak" GOP field, they have a long way to go before the next election in proving that Sen. Bennet is the best choice of the people for the state of Colorado.

RMA 2.0: Rocky Mtn Blogs Radio Show #23

2009-04-21T14:57:00.001-06:00

**Every Tuesday--next show April 21, 8:30 pm.

The Blog Talk Radio version of the Rocky Mountain Alliance. A weekly discussion about politics--national, state, and local--featuring RMA members bloggers led by featured host and producer Joshua Sharf, with rotating co-host duties from Ben DeGrow of Mount Virtus, Randy Ketner of Night Twister, and Michael Alcorn of Best Destiny.

April 21 lineup--Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado from 8:45-9:15pm to discuss judicial accountability and retention of judges on the Colorado Supreme Court in 2010.

April 14 lineup--Brian Campbell discusses the April 15 Tax Day Tea Party rally in Denver and the movement in general, and Jessica Corry dishes on the showdown between the Independence Institute and CU over their budget and administrator salaries.

April 7 lineup--In an excellent solo hosting gig, Ben DeGrow reviewed the heated Fort Collins City Council race with co-host Randy Ketner, spoke with J.J. Ament, who is considering a run for state treasurer, and discussed parental rights and homeschooling with Marya DeGrow of the Independence Institute.

March 31 lineup--Nancy Doty talks about a potential run for Secretary of State, and DU law professor Robert Hardaway on HB1299, the bill to replace the Electoral College with a National Popular Vote.

March 24 lineup--we review of the recent state GOP organizational meeting, where Dick Wadhams was reelected as state chair, and Leondray Gholston was elected vice chair after three rounds of voting with Boulder County GOP chair Scott Starin, and David K. Williams, co-founder of the Gadsden Society of Colorado.

Next week--TBD.

March 17 lineup--State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry was our first guest, followed by Nathan Chambers, candidate for Colorado Republican Party state vice chair.

March 10 lineup--From 8:45 to 9:15, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and at 9:30 Hassan Daioleslam.

March 3 lineup--two candidates for Fort Collins City Council, Aislinn Kottwitz (District 3) and Andrew Boucher (District 5), and Tom Stone, who is challenging Dick Wadhams for state party chairmanship.

February 24 lineup--Evan Coyne Maloney of Indoctrinate U, whose film of the same name was shown at the inaugural Liberty on Film last Thursday, and Nadeem Esmail of the Fraser Institute, discussing the dangers of single-payer (socialized) medicine from first hand experience.

Indoctrinate U trailer:

Plus two special editions of RMA Radio--the Pork Roast/anti-stimulus rally edition from the steps of the state capitol, as well as extensive coverage of the Larimer County Lincoln Day dinner.

February 17 lineup--Denver-based political activist Chris Maj, also an affiliate of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and a look back to today's anti-stimulus/pig roast rally at the state capitol.

February 10 lineup--State Rep. Cory Gardner (R-63), probable candidate in the CD-4 GOP primary, and Leondray Gholston, Republican activist and candidate for state GOP vice-chair.

February 3 lineup--Daveed Gartenstein-Ross from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Mike Saccone of the Grand Junction Sentinel.

January 27--Guests included elections expert Jan Tyler and State Sen. Greg Brophy.

January 20--Guests included Todd Shepherd, Independence Institute, and Mark Hillman, Colorado Republican National Committeeman.

January 13--State Rep. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango (HD 59) and State Senator Mike Kopp, SD 22, R-Littleton.

January 6--CU Regent Tom Lucero, chairman of the successful Amendment 54 campaign and a candidate for CD 4 in 2010.

December 30--RMA took a look back at a dismal year in their 2008 year-in-review.

December 23--Joshua and fellow commentators (including yours truly) hosted Jim Pfaff of Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Opinion Times. Pfaff discussed the AFP Colorado report "Keeping Colorado Competitive" and bridging the Christian/libertarian gap.

On December 16 we hosted State Rep. Kevin Lundberg (District 49), and discussed the Salazar appointment as the Secretary of the Interior in the Obama cabinet.

The December 12 edition featured Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier.

Complete list of guests featured on RMA Radio can be found here.

**Bookmark the new RMA Radio home page, with embedded player and calendar of upcoming shows and featured guests.

Stream the show live, or play/download the podcast at your convenience.

I'll update co-host and guest info for each episode as it becomes available. Stay tuned . . .

RMA's shows are archived--if you missed any of them, be sure to check out the archive page to stream or download, or scroll down this page a bit, for the embedded archive player.