...................The Voice of the Rockies ..............

How the Democrats Won Colorado

2010-05-03T09:21:00.000-06:00

The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care)

Wednesday, April 14th at 9:46AM EDT

I recently finished an early copy of a book called The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care). It is a fascinating read about what took place in Colorado over the course of about 5 years, and how a group of very wealthy progressives changed the entire political landscape of Colorado by thinking outside the box.

Let me explain. The 2006 and 2008 election cycles were unkind to the Republican Party, but what happened in Colorado was something altogether different and totally new. A group of four mega-donors decided to ignore the state Democratic establishment and start from scratch with a brand new, privatized political infrastructure. Of course they were aided by the new campaign finance reform laws, but what the “Gang of Four” (Rutt Bridges, Tim Gill, Jared Polis and Pat Stryker) did was replicate all of the essential functions of the Colorado Democratic Party–and added a few more for good measure.

From policy generation to leadership recruiting, coalition building to grassroots activation, the Gang of Four personally funded dozens of 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) and 527 organizations that worked in perfect harmony to take down the Republican establishment and install left-leaning policymakers in its place.

To understand what happened in Colorado is to understand the future of state-level politics, but I think the future of American politics as a whole: I’m convinced that what the Left did in Colorado at the state-level can be done on a national level by creating a conservative privatized political infrastructure. And it’s clear the Left is intent on doing that very thing on their side: the left is effectively exporting the “Colorado Model” to other states and then “stitching” together these local organizations, so really the Colorado narrative is also the story of how national politics is changing as well.

If you’ve been following the discussion of the “Colorado Model,” with Fred Barnes writing a superb article on it in 2008, then you’re probably familiar with the general ideas of what happened in Colorado. But the great thing about The Blueprint is the depth that it goes into. The book is authored by former Republican Colorado state legislator Rob Witwer, and a Denver-based political journalist, Adam Schrager, and because of their work, we now have a detailed look into the inner workings of the Left’s new political infrastructure.

My only disappointment with the book was the title. I really wish it had been titled “The Blueprint: How the Left Won Colorado (and Why Conservatives Everywhere Should Care),” because I think that is a more precise description of what happened. The Democrat Party didn’t win Colorado: the progressive left did. They simply used the Democrat Party as a vehicle by which to achieve their political ends. The reason conservatives should care is two-fold: they aren’t facing the Democrat Party of old. They are facing a very aggressive and well-organized Left that is intent on implementing statism in this country, starting from the state and local level and building to the federal. But the other reason is that conservatives can do, and should do, exactly what the Left did in Colorado: create privatized political infrastructure, and then use the party, or parties, as the vehicles to achieve their political ends.

I rarely promote books, but I really mean this when I say that every conservative should read “The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care). It is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how the Left has built its machine. So go get your copy, read it, and see how you can work towards implementing it in your own state on behalf of freedom

2010-03-25T19:56:00.001-06:00

March 23, 2010
It's a Civil War: What We Do NowBy Dennis Prager
RealClearPolitics

A terrible thing happened to America on Sunday, March 21, 2010.
The country took its biggest step ever down a road diametrically opposed to its original intent of keeping the state small so that the individual can be free and great.

Therefore, in this unprecedented crisis of values, this is what needs to be done:
1. Know and teach America's core values.

We got to this point solely because over the past few generations, Americans have forgotten the values that have made America distinctive and great. Even the "Greatest Generation" failed to communicate them.

In a nutshell, they are what I call the American Trinity: "In God we trust," "Liberty" and "E Pluribus Unum." The left has successfully made war on all three -- substituting secularism for God and religion in as much of American life as possible; substituting equality (of result) for liberty; and multiculturalism is the opposite of "E Pluribus Unum."

People who do not understand American ideals -- especially small government -- now dominate our schools, our entertainment media and our news media.

(My own contribution here is a video titled, "The American Trinity" at www.prageru.com. Please view it and forward it.)

2. Recognize that we are fighting the left, not liberals.

Conservatives and centrists are no longer fighting liberals. We are fighting the left.

Liberalism believed in American exceptionalism; the left not only does not believe in it, the left opposes it. President Obama, when asked if he believes in American exceptionalism, replied, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

Liberalism believed in creating wealth; the left is interested in redistributing it.
Liberalism believed in a strong defense. The left believes in cutting defense and a strong United Nations.

3. Democrats should be referred to as Social Democrats.
This is not meant to be cute, let alone as a slur. But calling Democrats Social Democrats is an effective way of reminding Americans that there is no longer any difference between what is now known as the Democratic Party and the Social Democratic parties of Europe.

When the Democratic Party returns to its roots as a liberal, not a left-wing, party, we will happily resume calling the party by its original name. However, since no Democrat can cite a significant difference between the Democratic Party and the SD parties, there is no good reason not to use the more accurate nomenclature.

4. Work tirelessly to repeal the bill.

We must single-mindedly work to repeal the government health plan. We all know that it is difficult to repeal entitlements because they are like drugs and it is very difficult to wean people off drugs. But it is not impossible. We need to warn our fellow Americans that entitlements will do to America what drugs eventually do to addicts.

All Republicans must run for office on the "repeal" issue. Even when they lose, the difference between right and left, between Republicans and Social Democrats will have been made clear; and clarity is our best friend.

5. Our motto: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

I used this phrase in addressing the Republican members of Congress. It has become widely used, including by Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., on the House floor during the Congressional debate on Sunday. It encapsulates this epic battle of American values versus leftist values. Every movement needs a motto. I nominate this.

6. Do not let other matters distract.

Neither Republicans nor conservatives are united on every issue facing America. Immigration is one example. But we are united on the big government vs. free individual issue, which, more than anything else, has defined America. If we allow any other domestic issue to divide us, we will lose.

And here's why: If Americans forget what America stands for, it won't help us if there is not one illegal immigrant here. And if we do remember what it means to be American, we can handle anything.

7. Acknowledge that we are in a non-violent civil war.

I write the words "civil war" with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.
Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable.

If the left wins, America's values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

After Sunday's vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don't fight for it, we don't deserve it.

The danger to America is not Barack Obama ...

2010-03-23T15:59:00.004-06:00

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency.

It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The republic can survive a Barack Obama.

It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

The One Way Street

2010-02-17T23:26:00.000-07:00

We hear this all time — conservatives in the GOP have to play nice with the moderates.

We never hear the other, that moderates should play nice with conservatives. Why is that? Consider the facts:

In Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, conservative Tim Walberg challenged the very liberal Joe Schwartz in the 2006 Republican Primary and won. Walberg went on to win the general election.

In 2008, Schwartz endorsed Democrat Mark Schauer and Shauer used that endorsement to squeak out a win in this +2 Republican District.

In Maryland 1, conservative physician and state senator Andy Harris ran in the Republican Primary against Wayne Gilchrist. Harris defeated Gilchrist only to see Gilchrist throw his support to Democrat Frank Kratovil, who won with 49.12% of the vote.

In Arizona 5, conservative David Schweikert won the Republican nomination, but then lost to liberal Democrat Harry Mitchell. Why? Schweikert’s primary opponent refused to help him and sat on his hands rather than help Schweikert pick up his opponent’s primary support.

In Alabama 2, Jay Love beat Harri Anne Smith in the Republican Primary and ran against Bobby Bright in an R +16 district. Smith endorsed the Democrat and Bright went on to win 50.23% of the vote.

In New York 23, the liberal Dede Scozzafava drops out and instead of supporting the guy the GOP crawls on bended knee to, she endorses the Democrat.

All the time we hear “conservatives can’t win the general” and “conservatives should play nice with moderates.” The record shows that the moderates cannot take losing and conservatives don’t win the general because the moderate GOP stabs them in the back.

If we are a team, it can’t just be the conservative players in trouble for not passing the ball.

Erik Erikson

http://www.redstate.com/users/erick/

Laffer: Obama's 'Train Wreck' Ahead

2010-01-29T21:13:00.000-07:00

Laffer: Obama's 'Train Wreck' Ahead
by Donald Lambro (more by this author)

Arthur Laffer, creator of the Laffer Curve that showed how low tax rates boost economic growth, is warning anyone who will listen that the economy is headed for a “train wreck” in 2011 that will make the current recession look tame by comparison.

The famed economist, whose supply-side, tax-cutting policies enacted by President Reagan in 1981 put the economy on a record-breaking, 25-year economic trajectory of growth and prosperity, is telling Americans not to be lulled by sporadic signs of growth this year, because the economy is headed for a sharper decline next year when tax rates are expected to jump sharply, sending the economy into a new tailspin.

“It will make the decline in U.S. output from 2010 to 2011 worse than the decline in output in 2008 and 2009 which will catastrophic,” Laffer said in an interview with HUMAN EVENTS.In a wide-ranging discussion about where the economy is headed, and the fiscal, tax and monetary reasons why, Laffer gives a bleak forecast of where President Obama and his administration are taking the country in the next three years -- which he predicts will end with Obama’s defeat in 2012. “Obama is a fine, very impressive person. He really is.

Unfortunately, everything that he is doing in economics is exactly wrong. He is a crappy president,” Laffer said. “Whenever a country is in the throes of spending too much and raising taxes, it’s a fiscal catastrophe in the making and this is what is happening now,” he said. The economy in the short-term this year “will continue to improve, growing by more than 4 percent. By the end of 2010 the unemployment rate could fall to as low as 7 percent and the Obama administration will be busting with pride and conceit,” Laffer told his clients in his latest economic outlook for the year ahead.

But don’t be fooled into thinking the economy is actually coming out of one of the worst recessions of the post-war era, because this year will be a false recovery, he adds. The downturn will begin again when “2011 will enter center stage, followed quickly by an economic catastrophe. All the factors that will make 2010 (and have already made the last half of 2009) look so good will reverse direction, and 2011 will be a train wreck,” he said in his forecast. The big reason, among several, is Obama’s plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of this year, and other tax increases the Obama administration intends to enact this year and next, and how businesses will respond to these tax changes.

“In anticipation of known tax increases the economy will shift income and output from 2011 -- the higher tax year -- into 2010 -- the lower tax year. As a result of this income shift, 2010 will look a lot better than it should, and 2011 will be a train wreck,” he predicts. “GDP growth in 2010 will be some 3 to 4 percent higher than it otherwise should be, thus green shoots,” he said. “The transfer of income from 2011 into 2010 will not only make 2010 [economic growth] higher than it otherwise would be, it will also make 2011 [economic growth] 3 and 4 percent lower than it otherwise should be because people have shifted income out of 2011 into 2010.”

“The effect of the shift in income on GDP growth in 2010, however, is going to be fairly substantial, but when the U.S. economy comes to 2011, the train’s going to come off the tracks.” But the tax picture also will grow darker this year as the country heads into the midterm elections, Laffer said. “In 2010 the U.S. will have a payroll tax rate increase, an estate tax increase and income tax increases. There’s also a tax increase coming in 2010 on carried interest. This rate will rise from its current level of 15 percent to 35 percent, and then it will rise again in 2011.” Many economists are predicting modest growth rates this year, but high unemployment, too, which the Federal Reserve Board’s economists are projecting will be in the mid-to-high 9 percent range into the fourth quarter.

Others say it could go higher. The national unemployment rate is at 10 percent, but if you count workers who have given up looking for work and those who are in temp jobs, the real jobless rate is over 17 percent. Last week, the Labor Department said that 43 states saw their unemployment rates rise in December, especially in key Democratic strongholds such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and California. “We are presently in a dangerously risky economic environment, more risky than any in memory and that includes the 1970s,” said Stanford economist John Cogan, a former Reagan administration fiscal adviser. “The primary sources of that risk come from uncertainty about U.S. government economic policy.

In the area of taxation, personal income taxes, especially those on savings and capital formation, are set to rise substantially in a year,” Cogan told me. “How high tax rates will rise and what activities will be hit hardest creates a sizeable risk this year for investors and businesses.” Cogan is especially worried about the damage that will come from the administration’s “unprecedented peacetime deficits. Because we are in uncharted territory, there is considerable uncertainty about how bad the consequences of the run-up in debt will be. But we do know that they won’t be good.” The mountain of debt that Obama is piling up is breathtaking and Laffer says it will put unprecedented burdens on the economy that will only get worse under his proposed tax and spending policies. Federal, state and local government spending has climbed to 38 percent of GDP, with the federal government’s spending binge accounting for 27 percent of GDP, he said.

Earlier this month, Laffer presented his economic forecasts to several dozen conservative House members at a private policy briefing retreat held in Charlottesville, Va., sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. Laffer’s presentation was said to be the high point of the retreat. The reason: Laffer doesn’t mince words and placed economic growth options in front of the lawmakers in blunt and dramatic terms that few if any economists have the courage to tackle.For example, he remains convinced that Congress should never have spent the bailout money it has dished out so far, which he puts “at about $3 trillion. “We should have done nothing. I was pretty much alone in that position near the end of 2008,” he told me.“If you total what the government takes in the income tax, corporate tax, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, all of that adds up to $2.2 trillion in tax receipts and they spent $3.5 trillion,” he said. Instead of the massive bailouts, stimulus and other giveaway programs, Laffer says, “I would have had a federal tax holiday. No taxes of any sort for a year and nine months which comes out to $3.5 trillion.

“Can you imagine what would have happened to the economy. We’d have an unemployment rate of three percent and the economy would be growing like mad and we’d be way out of this problem,” he said. After one year in office, Obama’s $800 billion spending stimulus plan has provided little if any stimulus to the economy and produce few if any permanent new jobs. The administration promised that the unemployment rate would be down to about 7 percent by now, but in fact the jobless number has climbed higher as Obama’s job approval numbers have fallen sharply and an increasing number of Democratic lawmakers are in trouble or have decided not to seek re-election.

Obama’s answer is another spending “stimulus” bill of perhaps $200 billion or more, new, Draconian regulations and tax hikes on the nation’s troubled financial system, and moving ahead with costly health care plan, job-killing climate change bills and other legislation that will drive up the government’s massive debt. “All in all, the risk facing our economy from these policy uncertainties is severe,”

Cogan told me this week. “This uncertainty will certainly retard the economy’s recovery this year and, depending on what policy actions are taken, it could profoundly damage the economy in 2011 and subsequent years.”

We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws.

2009-12-22T11:29:00.000-07:00

Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare

The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels

Monday, December 21st

If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.
It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.
Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.
To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes.

Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.
How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate.

To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:

DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”
The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.
Senator DeMint responded:
DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.
DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.
That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.
To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.

UPDATED: A number of people on our side are saying I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill on this issue. I hope they and you, after reading this, will read this response to that criticism.
For your edification, the full transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President is presented, unedited, below the fold.
————————————————————————————-
7:30 PM
PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. DEMINT
not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the senator from south carolina.
DEMINT
mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
without objection.
DEMINT
parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?
7:31 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
it does.
DEMINT
further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
that would require a two-thirds vote.
DEMINT
i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he
referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?
7:32 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT
i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions
and rules changes?
i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because
there were rules changes included in them?
7:34 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the chair would like to check that for a future answer.
DEMINT
okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of
the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute. these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced
under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives. the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding
rule 15 of the standing rules of the senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph a may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee on finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection c-3. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the
bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15. let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to
this subsection.” and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate
rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this
bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?
7:38 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.
DEMINT
okay. mr. president –
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.
DEMINT
mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?
7:39 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
it is quite common to do that.
DEMINT
i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?
this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.

7:40 PM
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.
7:41 PM
DEMINT
is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
yes.
DEMINT
and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
that is correct.
DEMINT
then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow

The new socialism

2009-12-14T01:08:00.000-07:00

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, December 11, 2009

The new socialism

In the 1970s and early '80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a "New International Economic Order." The NIEO's essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.

On what grounds? In the name of equality -- wealth redistribution via global socialism -- with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.

The idea of essentially taxing hardworking citizens of the democracies to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early '80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.

But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.

One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health.

Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means more than a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.

Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.

With the Senate blocking President Obama's cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d'etat served as the administration's loud response to Webb: The hell we can't. With this EPA "endangerment" finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.

Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There's the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society -- as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based -- you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.

Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend clean-air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.

Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn't lurking in CIA cloak. He's knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.

Individual Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional

2009-12-10T17:15:00.003-07:00

Its an Unconstitutional Mandate and here is why

When Nancy Pelosi was asked where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance, she dismissed the question by saying, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

According to CNSNews, her press spokesman said that this authority comes from Congress’s “constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.” However, as a new legal memorandum from Heritage points out, Speaker Pelosi is completely wrong: The individual insurance mandate is both unconstitutional and unprecedented.

There is no question that the Supreme Court has upheld extensive regulation of economic activity through the Commerce Clause, but it has never upheld any requirement by Congress that an individual participate in economic activity.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to punish you if you don’t engage in commerce. Liberal law professors and editorial writers such as Erwin Chemerinsky of UC-Irvine and Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post try to gloss over this point, and won’t admit that the Supreme Court has never approved any such requirement.

The new Heritage paper points out that the penalty imposed on individuals who don’t comply with this mandate is also a capitation tax, and therefore unconstitutional, because it is not assessed evenly based upon population.

The paper also explains why a federal mandate to buy health insurance would be totally different from state requirements to buy automobile-liability insurance. The federal government does not have the inherent police powers of the states that authorize such mandates; the state requirements are imposed on those who engage in a voluntary activity (driving a car), while the health-insurance mandate would be imposed on everyone; you only have to buy liability insurance if you drive on public roads; and finally, states only require you to get insurance that protects third parties that you may injure through your driving — you are not required to buy insurance to protect yourself from injury or your own car from damage.

If Congress can impose a health-insurance mandate, then there is no limit to what Congress can do, and the Constitution’s limits on congressional power will have essentially been eliminated.

As Will Rogers once said, "with Congress, every time they make a joke it’s a law, and every time they make a law it’s a joke".

Unfortunately, none of us will be able to laugh over this pending abuse of power.

.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"mind set"

2009-12-08T23:39:00.006-07:00

Not understanding the "private" sector could be a problem?? Perhaps the "mind set" that government has the solution to all the problems??

Nick Schulz posts a great chart showing the degree of private sector experience of presidential cabinets going back to Teddy Roosevelt:

Less than 10% of the current Cabinet have ever worked in the private sector.

If Truman Had Taken WWII as Seriously as Obama Takes the War on Terror

2009-12-07T11:20:00.003-07:00

By Doug Patton Monday, December 7, 2009

Imagine for a moment President Harry Truman addressing cadets at on his strategy for finishing World War II:

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our Armed Services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our efforts against Japan in the Pacific — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.

To address these issues, it’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in the Pacific in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On December 7, 1941, naval forces of the Empire of Japan used their aircraft to murder nearly 3,000 people when they attacked our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Unfortunately, when we declared war on Japan, the decision also was made to wage a second war, in Europe, against Nazi Germany. For three years, the war in Europe drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that decision to go into Europe, against a force that never attacked us, caused substantial rifts between America and the rest of the world.

Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the war in Europe to a responsible end. But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Europe, the situation in the Pacific has deteriorated, and throughout this period, our troop levels in that region have been insufficient to bring this war to a conclusion.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send additional troops to the Pacific. However, after 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.

I do not make this decision lightly. We have been at war now for three long years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over the war in Europe have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.

And having lived through the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.

As we end the war in Europe, and focus on a reasonable timetable for withdrawal from the Pacific, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides the foundation for our power. That’s why our troop commitment in the Pacific theater of operations cannot be open-ended.

From now on, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict, not just how we wage wars. Where Japan and her allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether on Iwo Jima or the Philippines or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.

We’ll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. We have to forge a new beginning between America and the Asian world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

And finally, we must draw on the strength of our values. That is why I have prohibited the mistreatment of prisoners and closed our POW camps. We must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and respect the dignity of all peoples.

We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.

Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America!

Can you imagine such a scenario?

No, neither can I.

Men don't follow titles; they follow courage.

2009-12-04T10:08:00.000-07:00

From RedState.com

Instead of using every trick in the book to defeat Sen. Harry Reid's government-run health plan, Senate GOP leadership is idly sitting by while Democrats tweak the bill to buy off votes. Instead of doing everything in its power to block a bill that is solidly opposed by more voters than not, Senate GOP leadership is allowing Sen. Reid to process amendments and move the trains as if this bill, the largest government takeover of the private sector in American history, represented nothing out of the ordinary. With each passing amendment, Democrats become closer and closer to buying off the all-important 60th vote.

To fully grasp the near-criminal ineffectiveness of the party's current strategy, just peruse the following news stories and ask yourself, "Do narratives like these increase or decrease the likelihood of Senate approval of government-run health care?"

AP: "The 61-39 roll call Thursday by which the Senate adopted an amendment to safeguard coverage of mammograms and preventive screening tests for women under a revamped health care system."
Reuters: "U.S. Senate bolsters preventive care for women"
Bloomberg: Senate Approves Plan to Boost U.S. Mammogram Testing

Top GOP leaders have mistakenly convinced themselves that the key to defeating the bill is to process a number of Republican "messaging" amendments while letting Democrats offer whatever amendments are necessary to buy 60 votes.

There are three fatal problems with this strategy: 1) leadership insists on pushing its own too-clever-by-half "message" instead of listening to the clear message faxed, e-mailed and phoned to every elected official in Washington ("KILL THE BILL!"), 2) as evidenced by the articles above, the current "messaging strategy" is an abysmal failure, and 3) by allowing amendments to be processed at no cost to the majority party, GOP leaders are merely greasing the skids for government-run health care.

In the movie "Braveheart," William Wallace tells Robert the Bruce, a noble who had the desire but not the guts to do the right thing, "Men don't follow titles; they follow courage." It would be refreshing to see more of the latter from those with the former in the United States Senate.

2009-11-22T14:40:00.000-07:00

Another Failed Presidency

2009-11-17T11:13:00.000-07:00

Another Failed Presidency

An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China 20.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?
No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

---

Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist. He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes on Health projects. He is also a writer for American Thinker.

Dan on Veteran's Day

2009-11-10T12:52:00.001-07:00

As we approach another Veterans’ Day I would like to take the opportunity to expound on a few thoughts related to our service men and women past and present.

The Founders understood the necessity of having an army and a navy. Provision for these protectors of our freedoms was set down in the Constitution. Since the early days of the Republic we have, at times, revered and vilified those protectors.

My service was lack-luster at best but I am proud to have served with true heroes who fought selflessly to protect all of us from those intent on denying us our freedoms as set down in the Constitution. That document is unique to the United States. No other country can boast of its like. For that reason it is incumbent upon all of us to work diligently in its defense; but those who work the hardest are the brave men and women who lay their lives on the line every day. To them it is just a matter of doing what is right; it’s no big deal.

We have all received the emails about the Marine escorting the remains of a fallen comrade, or the stories about a soldier charging down the murderous barrage of gunfire to save his down buddy, or fighting house to house to free a town from the thugs trying to impose their warped ideology on the populous. As Admiral Nimitz said of the Marines on Iwo Jima, “Uncommon valor was a common virtue.” Countless stories of valor have come from Iraq and Afghanistan over the past eight years. These humble warriors simply have a job to do and they do it – better than anyone else in the world.

I would challenge all of you to stop and say “Thank you” whenever you see one on the street, in the grocery store or at a gas station. Chances are they will be embarrassed or surprised when you say it, but they will appreciate the thought.

Last week, a friend sent a You Tube link to a recording of The Ten Tenors singing “Here’s to the Heroes.” If you haven’t watched it, I highly recommend it. Even if you have, it is well worth watching a couple of dozen times.

To all of you young men and women who now constitute the new “Great Generation” I say Thank You.

As always, your comments and discussion are welcome.

Daniel C. Lanotte

Going forward with a mandate!!!

2009-11-07T16:02:00.000-07:00

Going forward with a mandate!!!

By Kent Clawson - Posted on 04 November 2009

What a night for D-49!!!

After months of manufactured turmoil, in the shadow of an apparent recall effort, and with so much alleged support, the Recall detractors lose big (and almost completely). With the election of Danielle Lindorf, Chris Wright, and almost Donahue Quashie, the mandate has been delivered. For the Harold family and Jackie Vialpandos, it must be crushing to go from a Spring lined with almost unenviable political traction and fodder full of apparent success finally waiting to be harvested, ready to take over the Board, to instead placing only one of the their endorsed candidates (and that one by such a narrow margin that it must have been a sigh of relief to have the final votes counted).

Ms. Lindorf in particular should feel greatly emboldened since spurious statement challenged her commitment, experience, even her religion!!! Instead on this night she finds herself as the new record holder for District 49 candidates after securing a place on 2 out of 3 ballots delivered.

Will this silence the detractors? No, but their shrillness will be tempered by the fact that they failed in their bid and DO NOT represent the majority of District 49 voters. They DO NOT embody the principles that the average District 49 voter embraces.

This election was a defining moment in District 49. It will be reviewed in the not to distant future as the election that empowered the candidates of change. The detractors will no longer be able to pass their conspiratorial vagaries' as those of the silent majority.

It is a great day in District 49 and I wish all of the candidates my best, and I wish all of the victors (including Tammy Harold) success on their new journey.

Kent

Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant

2009-10-21T10:12:00.000-06:00

by Paul E. Marek

History lessons are often incredibly simple.

I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”

We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behea
The fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
d, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

----------------------------------

Democrat Jackie Vialpando and Tammy Harold, run together for D49 Falcon school board

2009-10-11T18:42:00.018-06:00

It's Time for School Board Elections in Falcon D49

I was asked to get some facts on what is known on the public record about each of these candidates. These two Liberal activists generate the most questions from D49 voters.

Jackie Vialpando (D)

Registered Democrat.

Works for school district 11. Has served on many D49 committees. Has a Daughter at Sand Creek HS. Handed out flyers to students and parents in front of a D49 high school that resulted in a mass protest and a partial shut down of the school.

Advocated for and helped organize the failed Recall attempt of Director Kent Clawson.

Received the Largest single contribution in D49 history from the FTEA (TEACHERs UNION) in her unsuccessful bid for school board in 2005.

Has publically stated that Christmas Break is unconstitutional.

Candidate information:

http://district49.blogspot.com/2009/09/democrat-jackie-vialpando-answers-to.html

---------------------------------------------------------

Tammy Harold (U)

Tammy Harold, wife of former Democrat activist Tom Harold, are both now registered Unaffiliated.

Former member of the D49 DAAC. Has children at Skyview Middle school, and Stetson Elementary.

Advocated for and helped organize the failed Recall attempt of D49 Director Kent Clawson. (Kent Clawson was endorsed and supported by the Republican Club of Falcon.)

Tammy and Jackie are like minded "progressives" who support each other 100%.

“Tammy stands behind me 100% and I stand behind her 100%; and we both stand behind Jackie 100%” Democrat community organizer Tom Harold - Gazette 8/1/2009.

http://www.csindy.com/colorado/dems-miss-an-opportunity/Content?oid=1327992

------------------------------------------

Does OBAMA Lie ?

2009-09-20T00:27:00.001-06:00

Return to the Article

September 18, 2009

Does He Lie?

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- You lie? No. Barack Obama doesn't lie. He's too subtle for that. He ... well, you judge.

Herewith three examples within a single speech -- the now-famous Obama-Wilson "you lie" address to Congress on health care -- of Obama's relationship with truth.

(1) "I will not sign (a plan)," he solemnly pledged, "if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. Period."

Wonderful. The president seems serious, veto-ready, determined to hold the line. Until, notes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, you get to Obama's very next sentence: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."

This apparent strengthening of the pledge brilliantly and deceptively undermines it. What Obama suggests is that his plan will require mandatory spending cuts if the current rosy projections prove false. But there's absolutely nothing automatic about such cuts. Every Congress is sovereign. Nothing enacted today will force a future Congress or a future president to make any cuts in any spending, mandatory or not.

Just look at the supposedly automatic Medicare cuts contained in the Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted to constrain out-of-control Medicare spending. Every year since 2003, Congress has waived the cuts.

Mankiw puts the Obama bait-and-switch in plain language. "Translation: I promise to fix the problem. And if I do not fix the problem now, I will fix it later, or some future president will, after I am long gone. I promise he will. Absolutely, positively, I am committed to that future president fixing the problem. You can count on it. Would I lie to you?"

(2) And then there's the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants. Obama said they would not be insured. Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

But more importantly, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the United States illegally. We have laws against burglary, too. But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don't voluntarily turn themselves in.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?

(3) Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.

That's not a lie. That's not even deception. That's just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse -- Meg Greenfield once called this phrase "the dread big three" -- as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions in "waste and fraud" savings?

Obama doesn't lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things -- energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel's Law -- a crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.

So on to the next gambit: selling health care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.

Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.

Slickness wasn't fatal to "Slick Willie" Clinton because he possessed a winning, near irresistible charm. Obama's persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot.

545 PEOPLE

2009-07-27T14:15:00.002-06:00

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Enumerated Powers

2009-04-26T20:46:00.001-06:00

There is a new concept brewing in Congress, HR 450, also known as the Enumerated Powers Act. If this bill passes it would state “Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress….”

What a concept, basing the actions of the federal government on only those powers granted by the Constitution. Now why didn’t I think of that? Actually, the Founders did think of it and spelled it out quite succinctly in the 10^th Amendment which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This tells me that Congress, the President, and the Courts have specific powers and only those powers.

My hat is flying off my head to salute Representative John Shadegg, R-Ariz. and the 19 other representatives who have signed on to this ground-breaking bill that will receive no notice in the main-stream press or by the Democrat leadership.

As it turns out, this is not the first time Representative Shadegg has introduced the bill. He has introduced it every year he has been in Congress. I have a couple of questions for every member of Congress; “Why is it necessary that this bill should even be required?” and “Why do I not see every member of the House of Representatives name as a cosponsor and the same in the Senate on a companion bill?” I do not think that these are rhetorical questions. I want an answer from each and every one of these individuals. For over 150 years, successive congresses, presidents, and courts have taken on powers not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. To see the cosponsors of this bill go here.

As I have noted on numerous occasions, I am no Constitutional Scholar, but in my reading of this venerable document I have found no constitutional justification for bailing out any private corporation; no constitutional justification for ordering a corporate executive to resign; or even the constitutional justification to tell petroleum companies when or where they can explore or drill for oil. Where in our Constitution does it say that the federal government has the authority to tell us who will have health care insurance, or who will pay for it? Please do not misunderstand me, I want everyone to be able to have access to health care but it is not within the purview of the federal government to determine the scope of that need or provide it.

The continuous over-reach of the federal government has accelerated to the point where we will not be out of debt for at least three generations unless we turn this trend around now. This means taking a number of immediate steps:

Cancel the “Stimulus Package”
Cut corporate taxes to a maximum rate of 14%
Repeal the 16^th Amendment
Pass a new amendment that guarantees all taxes will be fairly and equitably levied
Eliminate all cabinet/federal departments that do not directly fall in line with the enumerated goals and powers in the Constitution.

These measures only address the financial mess with which the federal government has saddled us. There are many more measures that should be taken to return the United States to the greatness that we once enjoyed. But our economy is arguably at the fore of our thought process at this time.

As usual, I welcome your comments and discussion

Daniel C. Lanotte

A Rookie President

2009-04-05T13:21:00.001-06:00

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.

We now have a rookie President of the United States and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other Presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been President before. He has never had any position of major executive responsibility in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.

Other first-term Presidents have been governors, generals, cabinet members or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and had not spent half their few years in the senate running for President.

What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every President has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil and certainly speak no evil.

They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder-- and they would make excuses for that. Even former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama and even crusty Bill O'Reilly has been impressed by Obama's demeanor.

There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes-- and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.

What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.

Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives-- and theirs-- in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?

In the name of "change," Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them-- certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by "social studies" or other politically correct courses.

Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? France did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

This year, President Obama's attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians-- a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.

Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime-- which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.

However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as President of the United States was to Hamas, to whom he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama's visibly less impressive reception of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous Presidents over the past two generations have received British Prime Ministers. President Obama's sending the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

We can lose some very big games with this rookie.

OBAMA the Narcissist

2009-04-02T08:06:00.000-06:00

Obama the Narcissist

Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm, but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are asbsorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.

T.S. Eliot

Sigmund Freud introduced the concept of narcissism in his 1914 essay On Narcissism: An Introduction. Freud suggested that a basic self-love might not be as abnormal as previously thought, and was even a common component of the human psyche. He argued that it was the desire and energy that drives our instinct to survive- he called this Primary Narcissism.

But he also described the existence in some of an abnormal Secondary Narcissism- a pathological condition that occurs when the libido (the psychic and emotional energy behind human actions) withdraws from objects outside of the self. Freud said that Secondary Narcissism is an extreme, exaggerated form of the narcissism present in all of us.

To care for someone is to convert ego-libido (self love) into object-libido by sacrificing some self-love to give to the other person, which leaves less ego-libido available for primary narcissism and the protecting and nurturing of the self. When that affection is returned in kind, so is the libido... thus restoring primary narcissism and self-worth.

As the child grows and his ego develops, he is contantly giving of his self-love to people and objects, the first of which is usually his mother. That diminished self-love should then be replenished by the affection and caring returned to him. However, any failure to achieve, or disruption of, this balance causes psychological disturbances. In any such case, primary narcissism can only be restored by withdrawing object-libido to replenish self-love/ego libido.

Another form of narcissism, Acquired Situational Narcissism, develops in late adolescence or in adulthood, and is brought-on by wealth, fame, and other trappings of celebrity. ASN differs from conventional narcissism in that it develops after childhood and is triggered and supported by the celebrity-obsessed society; fans, assistants, and the media all playing into the concept that the person really is vastly more important than other people, thereby triggering a problem that might have been only a tendency/latent, developing into a full-blown personality disorder.

So, narcissism can be defined as an eccessive, even erotic, interest in one's own self and physical appearance. It is typified by extreme selfishness, coupled to a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration. This self-centeredness arises from a failure to distinguish the self from external objects as a feature of a mental disorder.

Those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) have at-least 5 of these symptoms:

a grandiose sense of self-importance (i.e. exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements... even to the point of lying)

preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, omnipotence, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

harbors a belief that he/she is "special" and unique, and can only be understood by other special/high-status people or institutions- also feels "immune" and/or above-the-law

has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic and full compliance with his/her expectations

is interpersonally exploitative- uses others to reach goals

devoid of empathy; is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

is often envious of others, or believes that others are envious of him or her

shows arrogant, haughty, proud behaviors or attitudes

Additional signs of NPD to look for include:

overreacts to criticism, becoming angry or humiliated

utilizes denial mechanism to downplay own inadaquacies or failings

uses rationalization mechanism to justify self-centered behavior

jealousy and possessiveness

excessive need to feel special, adored, loved, appreciated, or admired

controlling behaviors

inflated self-esteem or grandiosity

blaming others for their situation or feelings

an attitude that "the world revolves around me" and a need for others to cater to their ideas, opinions, thoughts, and feelings

an unwillingness to reflect honestly on their own behavior

By almost any definition then, President Barack Obama is a pathological narcissist. He clearly displays many of the tell-tale indicators of NPD in public... we can only guess how it is manifested in his private life. His actions and words, the kind of people he surrounds himself with, towering arrogance, and inability to tolerate critics make Obama appear to be a textbook case.

Israeli author Dr Shmuel (Sam) Vaknin is a foremost authority on narcissism, and has written books on the topic such as Malignant Self-Love. He has also written a couple of papers on why he considers Barack Obama to likely have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Dr. Vaknin states " I must confess I was impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first, I was excited to see a black candidate... he looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon though, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling- his posture and his body language were louder than his empty words."

"Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming... he is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. But, Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist."

Dr Vaknin states that Obama's language, posture and demeanor suggest that has NPD... a pathological condition present in many charismatic leaders. The infamous Jim Jones of the People's Temple, a man who led over 900 of his followers to commit mass suicide and even murder their own children by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid was a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Chairman Mao, Kim Jong Il and Adolph Hitler are but a few examples of narcissistic leaders. All these men had a tremendous influence over their followers, and created a personality cult around themselves with powerful speeches that elevated their admirers... filling them with enthusiasm and a new zest for life. They promised them glory and greatness, but in the end lead them over the abyss. One never realizes the reality of the personality cult until it is too late.

Narcissists are highly self-sufficient and consider themselves peerless. Their "friends", companions, and acolytes provide them with an obsequious, unthreatening audience- with the kind of unconditional and unthinking obedience that confirms to him his omnipotence. They are sufficiently vacuous to make the narcissist look sharp and omniscient – but not so much as to be easily discernible as the sycophants that they are. They form the perfect backdrop, never likely to attain centre stage and overshadow their master... i.e. Robert Gibbs.

Aknin goes on to observe that "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations. Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant. Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995".

And one must never underestimate the manipulative genius of a pathological narcissist- they project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality, with his admirers becoming his co-dependents.

Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objectives. They are focused on one thing alone... and that is power. All other issues are meaningless, and anything that does not help them is simply beneath them.

Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into... his own autobiography. Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about himself... and titled it Dreams from My Father. Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody... and so did Josef Stalin. For the narcissist, there is no subject as important as one's self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius on insignificant things when he can write about his favorite topic?

Narcissists are often callous- and even ruthless. They tend to lack empathy and/or a conscience. This is evident in Obama's lack of interest in his own half-brother who lives in poverty in Kenya, or his aunt found living in public housing in Boston. But Barack Obama, who lives in luxury, takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign has no interest in the plight of his relatives- why not be more charitable towards deprived members of his own family? This is a clearcut decision for him, because these relatives cannot be used in attaining his own ends... and therefore don't interest Obama in the slightest.

What could be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? This case is different from the garden-variety narcissism of a Bill Clinton, for example. With Obama, his appears to be mental health issue... not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.

America is starting to wake-up to just exactly who this unvetted man they put in the White House is... and none of the surprises have been pleasant; a radical liberal agenda, apparent lack of ethics, myriad broken campaign promises, an inability to grasp basic economic issues or prioritize decisions, habitual dishonesty, and perhaps even serious psychological problems... and just two-months into this new administration. Looks like we're in for a long, rough ride with this one.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-narcissist.html

A foretaste of mob rule

2009-03-31T10:54:00.000-06:00

Victor Davis Hanson

COMMENTARY:

In the last three months, we've been reduced to something like the ancient Athenian mob - with opportunistic politicians sometimes inciting, sometimes catering to an already angry public.
The Greek comic playwright Aristophanes once described how screaming politicians - posing as men of the people - would sway Athenian citizens by offering them all sort of perks and goodies that the government had no idea how to pay for.

The historian Thucydides offers even more frightening accounts of bloodthirsty voters after they were aroused by demagogues ("leaders or drivers of the people"). One day, in bloodthirsty rage, voters demanded the death of the rebellious men of the subject island city of Mytilene; yet on the very next, in sudden remorse, they rescinded that blanket death sentence.
Lately, we've allowed our government to forget its calmer republican roots. We've gone Athenian whole hog.

Take the American International Group Inc. (AIG) debacle. The global insurance and financial-services company is broke and needed a federal loan guarantee of $180 billion to prevent bankruptcy. Some $165 million (about one-thousandth of the loan guarantee sum) was previously contracted as bonuses for its derelict executives.

That set off a firestorm in Congress. Politicians rushed before the cameras to demand all sorts of penalties for these greedy investment bankers. Soon, they passed an unprecedented special tax law just to confiscate 90 percent of these contracted bonuses.

Those who shouted the loudest for the heads of the AIG execs had the dirtiest hands. President Obama was outraged at their greed. But he alone signed their bonus provisions into law. And during the recent presidential campaign, no one forced him to accept over $100,000 in AIG donations.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, was even more infuriated at such greed and, as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, he helped pass the retroactive tax bill. Yet for years, the populist Mr. Rangel - who is in trouble over back taxes owed and misuse of his subsidized New York apartments - had tried to entice AIG executives to fund his Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, was the fieriest in his denunciations of Wall Street greed. Yet he was the very one who inserted the bonus provision into the bailout bill, despite later denying it. And Mr. Dodd has taken more AIG money than anyone else in Congress - in addition to getting VIP loan rates from the disgraced Countrywide Financial Corp. mortgage bank.

Then there is the matter of blowing apart the budget. Mr. Obama inherited from former President George W. Bush a $500 billion - and growing - annual budget deficit and a ballooning $11 trillion national debt. Mr. Obama nevertheless promised us an entirely new national health plan, bigger entitlements in education and a vast new cap-and-trade energy program.
But there is a problem in paying for the $3.5 trillion in budgetary expenditures Mr. Obama has called for in the coming fiscal year. Proposed vast additional taxes on the "rich" still won't provide enough revenue to avoid tripling the present budget deficit - and putting us on schedule during the next decade to add another $9 trillion to the existing national debt.

During the Clinton years, we got higher taxes but eventually balanced budgets. During the recent Bush administration, we got lower taxes but spiraling deficits. But now, during the era of Mr. Obama, we apparently will get the worst of both worlds - higher taxes than under Mr. Clinton and higher deficits than under Mr. Bush.

In other words, we - through our government - are spending money that we don't have. We're told the rich will pick up the tab, even though there are not enough rich with enough money to squeeze out the necessary amounts. Our new demagogues, though, argue this is the only fair course of action.

Meanwhile, these leaders - who have taken so much Wall Street money in the past - are driving us into fury to punish the guilty on Wall Street. This is truly the age of mindless mob rule.
Of course, we probably won't hear any candidate in four years issue the following assurance to voters: "I won't take any more money from Wall Street and will give back any that I already got. And if elected, I promise four consecutive years of budget cuts to achieve each year $1.5 trillion in annual budget surpluses. Only that way can we get the national debt back down to the past 'manageable' 2008 sum of $11 trillion."

We need such a Socrates in Washington right now, who would dare tell the American mob the truth of how we are descending into financial serfdom. But in this present mood, the aroused mob would first make him drink the hemlock.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and author of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."

Financial Crisis Explained In Simple Terms

2009-03-30T18:55:00.010-06:00

*Wendy is the proprietor of a bar in Washington.

In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers - most of whom are unemployed alcoholics - to drink now but pay later.

She keeps track of the drinks consumed in a ledger, thereby granting the customers loans.

Word gets around, and as a result increasing numbers of customers flood into Wendy's bar.

Taking advantage of her customers' freedom from immediate payment constraints, Wendy increases her prices for wine and beer, the most-consumed beverages. Her sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic customer service consultant at the local bank recognizes these customer debts as valuable future assets and increases Wendy's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for undue concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert bankers transform these customer assets into DRINKBONDS, ALKBONDS and BOOZEBONDS.

These securities are then traded on markets worldwide. No one really understands what these abbreviations mean and how the securities are guaranteed; nevertheless, their prices continuously climb, and the securities become top-selling items.

One day, although the prices are still climbing, a risk manager of the bank (subsequently fired due to his negativity) decides that the time has come to demand payment of the debts incurred by the drinkers at Wendy's bar.

But the drinkers cannot pay off their debts -- they're unemployed and they're alcoholics!

Wendy in turn can't fulfill her loan obligations and claims bankruptcy.

DRINKBOND and ALKBOND drop in price by 95%. BOOZEBOND performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping by 80%.

The suppliers of Wendy's bar, having granted her generous payment due dates and having invested in the securities, are faced with a new situation: they must write off her accounts as uncollectable and suffer the loss of their investments. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor.

The bank is saved by the Government following dramatic round-the-clock consultations by leaders from the governing political parties. Wendy, her suppliers, and all the investors who bought DRINKBONDs, ALKBONDs and BOOZEBONDs are left holding the bag.

The funds required for saving the bank - here's the good part! - are obtained by a tax levied on all non-drinkers.

Now do you understand?

Obama on education: right talk, wrong walk

2009-03-02T10:38:00.000-07:00

Obama on education: right talk, wrong walk
Star Parker
Monday, March 02, 2009

I share President Obama's concerns about education. We certainly need to do a better job, particularly in our low-income communities.

But, from what I see so far, we're on very different pages regarding how to think about the problem.

For Obama, the solution to everything seems to be government and spending. But in improving education, more of neither seems to work.

According to Department of Education data, reported by the Cato Institute, K-12 spending per student, adjusted for inflation, went from $5,393 in 1970 to $11,470 in 2004. Over the same period, there were tiny increases in math scores among 17-year-olds and no improvement in reading scores.

In his address to Congress, Obama was clear that he understands it's not just money but how it's spent. " ...our schools don't just need more resources, they need more reform," he said.

But can we really believe that over the thirty-five years that per pupil spending doubled it did not dawn on any educator that reform was in order? There are endless new ideas about how to spend money to manipulate kids into learning.

The problem with professional bureaucrats is that they think we learn about human beings in laboratories and academic studies. It never occurs to them the problem is a bankrupt culture, which they themselves often reflect, and what's needed is a return to traditional values.

I recently watched the made-for-television movie, "Gifted Hands."

It's based on the book by the same name by Dr. Ben Carson about his remarkable life. I read it years ago when it was published and made my daughters read it.

Dr. Carson is one of the world's few black pediatric neurosurgeons, world renowned for his professional accomplishments. He is a professor and department head at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions.

In his own words, he was an "at risk" child -- a black male raised in poverty by a young, poorly educated single mother.

According to Carson, "My mother worked as a domestic, two, sometimes three jobs at a time because she didn't want to be on welfare. She felt very strongly that if she gave up and went on welfare, that she would give up control of her life and of our lives, and I think she was probably correct about that."

When Carson was failing in school as a young boy, she laid down the law to him and his brother. Both of them would read two books a week and give her a book report (they had no idea she couldn't read). And, they'd be limited to three television shows per week.

Carson's young mother changed his life.

It's also relevant to mention that Carson's mother is a Christian woman of deep faith - a faith he shares. She redirected her boys' lives out of religious inspiration.

Ben Carson, of course, is an exceptional man. But his story verifies what existing studies show. The main predictor of a child's educational success is the parental guidance and involvement that the child gets at home.

Central to this also must be values. The problem is that these values - the traditional values that Ben Carson's mother taught him - are off limits in our public schools.

This is why throwing money at a government school monopoly is not going to change education realities. We need freedom, not money. Freedom to allow parents - certainly inner-city parents - to choose their child's school.

President Obama often uses the right words. He says that "responsibility for our children's education must begin at home." But then he will not allow parents' school choice and the option to choose a religious school.

Ben Carson's mother didn't need Harvard education theorists to know what her child needed.

We need more common sense and freedom in K-12 education -- not more government programs and money.

Mitt Romney - Stand with those who voted NO

2009-02-25T01:10:00.001-07:00

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is targeting 12 House Republicans who voted against the $800 billion wasteful stimulus bill. They stood their ground and voted no - and they were absolutely right. Now, the Democrats are mounting a major grassroots campaign against them. I want to do everything I can to help these courageous representatives and other candidates like them.

Yesterday, I announced that my Free and Strong America PAC will be sending $1,000 checks to each of these congressmen who are running for re-election in 2010 with a promise to do whatever we can to help them fend off political attacks from the liberals.

What conservatives wanted in the stimulus debate was a bill to strengthen the economy. The Democrats couldn't restrain themselves from throwing in tens of billions of tax dollars for their political friends and special interest groups. What we ended up with was a bill that stimulates the government!

For the last several years, liberals have been griping about the $700 billion that was spent over the last six years to win freedom in Iraq. They have now spent more than that in 30 days. And with a government almost $12 trillion in debt, they are putting at risk the creditworthiness of the United States.

Support our fellow conservatives in standing firm against wasteful spending and excessive borrowing by making a contribution to my PAC today.

Sincerely,

Mitt Romney
Honorary Chairman

Where is the Outrage - $700+ Billion Stimulus?

2009-02-17T00:23:00.002-07:00

The Congress has just passed the largest spending bill in our history. Let’s see what we get for our money, yes our money. However, I must digress to make sure we must understand how this system works. The basic premise is that if you borrow money, you have to pay it back. If you do not pay it back, someone who holds your collateral will call the debt. If you can’t pay it back the collateral is sized. OK, now that we have established the ground rules, we need to examine who is the borrower; who is the lender; who are the guarantors; how is this loan going to be repaid.

Who is the borrower? This one is fairly simple; it is the United States Congress and the President of the United States. Just as an aside, what are they borrowing money for? The stated purpose of the loan is to revitalize the United States economy and get people working again. Therefore, we need to examine the loan document to see where the money is going to be spent. Since the loan papers exceed 800 pages, I am not going to try to enumerate the whole package but rather give some representative examples.

$88 million to move the Public Health Service into a new building (what happened to Two Men and A Truck?)

$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters

$1 BILLION (yes with a B) for the Census Bureau (which is now going to fall directly under the president’s chief-of-staff)

$89 BILLION for Medicaid

$2.4 BILLION for “neighborhood stabilization” activities (read ACORN bailout/beef-up)

1.2 BILLION for a summer youth program

36 BILLION to expand unemployment (don’t we already have enough people out of work?)

Ok, you should get the picture by now. This short list of just over $130 BILLION shows me no examples of getting our economy out of the doldrums and putting people back to work. Instead, it shows me a gross expansion of our government “nanny state” mentality, Keynesian economics at its absolute worse (but I think that is redundant).

Who is the lender? That is fairly easy when you examine who is buying all of our paper. It is mostly being bought by foreign entities that do not necessarily have the United States’ best interest at heart; in other words, potential enemies such as the Peoples’ Republic of China, and Saudi Arabia. These are not benevolent regimes. At some point they are going to call the note and force the United States to “pony-up the cash.” What has President Obama promised these folks? What sweet deals has he promised for these loans? Or is he so inept and naïve as to think these lenders are just out for our benefit?

Who are the guarantors of this loan and how is it going to be repaid? That one is easy too. The guarantors are you, me, our children, our grandchildren, and their grandchildren. The obligations that this congress and administration have made exceed the GDP of the United States for decades to come. All of this money can be paid back in 10 or 20 years if the federal government stops spending at the end of 2009 and only pays back the loan (yup, that is going to happen). Our federal government is worse than a herd of pigs that have just come off a 10 mile hike and discovered a new slop trough. They have the arrogance to believe that we are stupid and will never understand that this program is part of the president’s plan for redistribution of wealth. It is his plan to punish individualism, entrepreneurship, and initiative.

My question is “Where is the outrage, where is the righteous indignation from those rugged American individualists?” We hear from bloggers and Conservative commentators about how bad this “Stimulus Package” is for America but where is the indignation coming from our congressmen and senators? We see unanimous negative votes from Republican congressmen, and that is laudable, but where is the screaming and shouting from the highest buildings across this land calling for a popular campaign against this federal government gorging?

The only way we are going to take back our country is for grassroots organizations such as the Coalition for a Conservative Majority to grow and work from the bottom up to change the mindset that has become prevalent in Washington. If the average citizen does not stand up for our rights then we will get what we deserve.

I urge everyone reading this to pass it along and go to www.ccmajority.org to see what you can do.

As always I welcome your comments and discussion.

Daniel C. Lanotte

States "PUSH BACK" against Federal Over Reach !

2009-02-11T22:43:00.002-07:00

It seems that there are some states that are saying “enough is enough” to the federal government. In a resolution introduced last week, the New Hampshire legislature has taken the nearly unprecedented step to remind the federal government

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; . . . . . therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force….

What crimes may we be talking about? Anything that does not fall under those listed above such as drug laws, gun control laws, and kidnapping laws to name a few. Many of the crimes Congress has identified are, indeed, crimes that need to be punished. However, I have been able to find no place in the Constitution where Congress and the president are given authorization to make such declarations. Under the 10^th Amendment, these determinations are left up to the states and therefore their citizens.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Looking at Article I. §8, there are numerous areas of control given to Congress such as; borrowing money; regulating commerce between the US and foreign nations, and the states; establishing citizenship requirements, etc., but none of the specific crimes that have been set down by Congress and signed by the presidents appear. My Constitutional Guru, Mr. Ric Morgan, Esq. has informed me that most of these laws are justified under the Commerce Clause, Art I §8(3) which states that the Congress shall have the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes….” I have to tell you that I have twisted my head every which way and the connection with many of the laws passed still seems pretty thin. Quoting Mr. Morgan:

Under the Commerce Clause, since the mid-1930's, federal power has incrementally extended to reach a myriad of far-flung issues that are only vaguely connected to interstate commerce by the most tendentious logic. Prior to the 1930's, all of those issues had been firmly within the States' control under Constitutional interpretations of the previous hundred and forty years.

These current standards defining the federal reach under the Commerce Clause are set forth in the 1995 Supreme Court case of Lopez v US, which was the first case in over sixty years to set any limits on the exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause.

In Lopez, an eighteen year-old miscreant and high school senior was caught carrying a .38 cal handgun on school grounds in San Antonio, Texas. He was tried and convicted under the federal "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990", which banned guns within 1000 feet of a school.

Lopez challenged the federal law on constitutional grounds, claiming that there is no federal authority to reach so far into the realm properly belonging to the States. The federal government defended on Commerce Clause grounds, claiming that carrying of firearms in a school zone would 1) lead to crime, which 2) frighten citizens, which would 3) inhibit travel, which 4) would lead to a weaker economy, and 5) was therefore related to interstate commerce and subject to the Commerce Clause. In the 1995 Lopez decision delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the court held that government's logic was too strained, the association to interstate commerce was unsupported by any facts, and "there must always be an outer limit to federal power".

But the government lost in Lopez based on the same tenuous logic that serves to justify thousands of other federal laws.

Since I started working on this Discourse an article in World Net Daily has been brought to my attention. In the article they point to eight states, including New Hampshire, that have introduced similar resolutions and the potential for 20 more states to follow suit. Many of these states are pointing to the “stimulus” package and are putting their collective feet down on unfunded government mandates.

As many of you know, I have a deep concern for any abuse or subversion of the 2^nd Amendment but there is an ever growing body of evidence of the systematic subversion of all of our rights by the federal government. Over the years, there have been steady steps, some large and some small, by various factions at the federal level to take our freedoms. However, the recent election cycle has emboldened numerous disparate groups to work together and put together what is being touted as a “stimulus” package. For many states, this is the last straw. We may be seeing the start of a significant push-back to this ever increasing trend of the federal government.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

The Impending Obama Meltdown

2009-02-05T15:08:00.000-07:00

The Impending Obama Meltdown By Victor Davis Hanson

Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.

We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.

First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?).

Second, was the "stimulus" (the euphemism for "borrow/print money") that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constituencies with cash.

Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censored Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims—apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred; and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on).

Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution—FISA, Guantánamo, the Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.—followed by "all that for now stays the same" inasmuch as we haven't ben hit in over seven years and can't risk another attack.

Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won't go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama's calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn't work. He already reminds me of Reverend Wright's undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.

Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he's ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it's only been two weeks.

And the result of all this?

At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.

Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama's world view of "Bush did it/but I am the world": The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say "shut up" about Kashmir and the Euros order no more "buy American").

This is quite serious. I can't recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton's initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and the Secretary of Defense. If he doesn't quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar

2009-02-01T19:09:00.001-07:00

Today I am going to look into our own former senator from Colorado, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. When I started researching Secretary Salazar to see what his stances were on different issues, I had both good and bad fortune. First, I have a lot of emails from him in the form of newsletters and replies to concerns about which I have emailed him. The not-so-good part about this is that he said very little of substance in any of them.

In June of 2007, I contacted him concerning the illegal immigration reform act that was being debated in the Senate. This act provided an amnesty path for illegals. I pointed out that the first part of the salutation for these people was “illegal.” If I fail to pay my taxes, where is the bill before Congress to allow me to get off Scott-free? However, Senator Salazar advocated passage of this deeply flawed piece of legislation, masking the amnesty issue with platitudes like “secure the borders, strengthen and enforce our immigration laws” and the best one “provide a realistic solution for the 12 million undocumented workers in our country.” An undocumented worker is a euphemism for illegal aliens. Fortunately, the cry raised from the American public was so loud that they had no choice but to defeat the bill. In an email a couple of days later (5 Jul 2007) he stated that he was “disappointed that the immigration reform legislation failed to pass the U.S. Senate….” This is just one example of how Mr. Salazar is on the wrong side of America.

Moving on, in his newsletter of 27 July 2007, he proudly announced his pleasure at the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) from the Senate Finance Committee. Please do not misunderstand me on this issue. With six grandchildren and one on the way, I want to see every child healthy and have access to health care whenever needed. However, in my extensive look through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I was unable to find anything like “any or all segments of American society shall have government supplied access to health care.” In fact, I was so concerned about this issue I went to the Founders’ writings to see what they said about the issue. The closest I could find was in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The key word here is “pursuit” of happiness, presuming that if you are healthy, you are happy, or at least closer to it than if you are unhealthy. I was able to find no provision in the Constitution for the U.S. Government to pay for social programs. I contend that the more hand-outs are given, the more the recipients will want. We have already begun down this slippery slope and stopping this descent should be a priority if we are going to survive as a nation. However, I digress. The issue at hand is Mr. Salazar.

In another email I received from him, Senator Salazar noted his support for the DREAM Act. This act would have offered a path of legalization for illegal children who had been going to U.S. schools and progressing well in their studies. Once again, Mr. Salazar was on the wrong side of the American public and the Constitution. Fortunately, this bill was defeated under the leadership of Senator Sessions of Alabama. The problem is that this fight should have been led by a dynamic leader from Colorado. My guess is that there are more illegals in Colorado than Alabama.

In his 23 October 2007 newsletter, Senator Salazar notes his support for the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. Personally, I support any effort to advance technology in alternative fuels. The more we work and study on technologies such as solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. the more efficient and inexpensive they will become. (I do not support growing crops for fuel; but that is another discussion.) This is just the natural progression. I also advocate the reduction in the use of dependence on all petroleum products; however it must be done in an intelligent way. Colorado has a huge repository of oil shale and other petroleum products. At a time (2007) when energy prices were skyrocketing, it was time to begin “Drill Now, Drill Here, Pay Less” as Newt Gingrich would say. In fact it was 10 years past time, but the Democrats refused to allow that to happen. The result was witnessed last year when we were pumping $4.00+ gas.

I have only gone through about one year’s worth of Mr. Salazar’s communications with me and have just barely scratched the surface. Suffice it to say that President Obama has certainly chosen another Cabinet officer who is unfit to serve the American public. Looks like the president’s choices are living down to his track record.

As always, I welcome your discussion and comments.

Dan

Another Real Estate Crisis Is About To Hit

2009-01-23T01:18:00.000-07:00

January 21, 2009
Another Real Estate Crisis Is About To Hit
By Paul Craig Roberts
For a picture of the US real estate crisis, imagine New Orleans wrecked by Hurricane Katrina, and before the waters even begin to recede, a second Katrina hits.

The 1,120,000 lost US retail jobs in 2008 are a signal that the second stage of the real estate bust is about to hit the economy. This time it will be commercial real estate—shopping malls, strip malls, warehouses, and office buildings. As businesses close and rents decline, the ability to service the mortgages on the over-built commercial real estate disappears.

The over-building was helped along by the irresponsibly low interest rates, but the main impetus came from the slide of the US saving rate to zero and the rise in household indebtedness. The shrinkage of savings and the increase in debt raised consumer spending to 72% of GDP. The proliferation of malls and the warehouses that service them reflect the rise in consumer spending as a share of GDP.

Like the federal government, consumers spent more than they earned and borrowed to cover the difference. Obviously, this could not go on forever, and consumer debt has reached its limit.

Shopping malls are losing anchor stores, and large chains are closing stores and even going out of business altogether. Developers who borrowed to finance commercial ventures are in trouble as are the holders of the mortgages, derivatives and other financial junk associated with the loans.

The main source of the economic crisis is the infantile belief of US policymakers that an economy could be based on debt expansion. As offshoring moved jobs, incomes, and GDP out of the country, debt expanded to take the place of the missing income. When the offshored goods and services were brought back to be sold to Americans, the trade deficit rose, adding another level of financing for an economy that consumes more than it produces.

The growth of debt has outpaced the growth of real output. Yet, the solution offered by Obama’s economic team is to expand debt further. This is not surprising as Obama’s economic team consists of the very people who brought on the debt crisis. Now they are going to make it worse.

The unexamined question is: Who is going to finance the next wave of debt?

The US budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 already appears to be on a path to $2 trillion, and that is before Obama’s stimulus program. What we are looking at is a $3 trillion budget deficit if Obama’s program is enacted in time to impact the economy this year.

Foreign countries can finance a $500 billion US budget deficit out of their trade surpluses with the US. But foreigners do not have the funds to finance a US budget deficit in the trillions of dollars, and they would not finance such a deficit even if they had the funds. Foreigners are over-weighted in dollar holdings and prefer to lighten their holding than to add to them. America’s economic prospects are dim as are the dollar’s prospects as reserve currency. An annual budget deficit in the trillions of dollars makes the dollar’s prospects appear even dimmer.

The federal government’s likely solution to the debt problem will be to monetize the debt, that is, the government will finance its deficit by printing money. Debt will be inflated away. But for those Americans without jobs or whose incomes do not rise with inflation, life will be cruel.

Life is already cruel for Americans living on retirement savings. Not only has the stock market bust reduced their wealth by half, but also their remaining assets are producing no income. Interest rates are so low that debt instruments produce no income, and there are scant capital gains in the stock market. Retirees are living by consuming their capital.

America’s economic policy of low interest rates and debt expansion bodes ill for everyone living off their savings. Their future prospects are even worse as high inflation will destroy the value of their savings, especially if held in cash or debt instruments, including "safe" US Treasuries.

There are more intelligent ways to try to escape from the current crisis. However, the financial gangsters and their shills that Obama has put in charge of economic policy are thinking only of their own interest. What happens to the American people is not a concern.

A compassionate government would handle the crisis in this way:

The trillions of dollars in credit default swaps (CDS) should be declared null and void. These "swaps" are simply bets that financial instruments and companies will fail, and the bulk of the bets are made by people and institutions that do not hold the financial instruments or shares in the companies. The ideology that financial markets were self-regulating allowed illegal gambling free rein. There is no reason under the sun for taxpayers to bail out gamblers.
The bailout money, instead of being given to favored financial institutions to finance their acquisition of other institutions, should be used to refinance the defaulting mortgages. This would slow, if not stop, the growing inventory of foreclosed properties that is driving down home prices.

The mark-to-market rule should be suspended until the real values of the troubled properties and instruments can be determined. Suspension of the rule would prevent the failure of sound institutions and lessen the need for a bailout.

Interest rates have to be raised in order to encourage saving and to provide incomes to retirees.

To preserve the dollar’s status as reserve currency, a credible policy of reducing both budget and trade deficits must be announced. In the near term the budget deficit can be reduced by $500 billion by withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and by cutting a bloated defense budget that represents the now unattainable goal of US world hegemony.

The trade deficit can be significantly reduced by bringing offshored jobs back to America. One way to do this is to tax corporations according to the value added to their output that occurs in the US. Corporations that produce their products for US markets abroad would have high tax rates; those that produce domestically would have low tax rates.

This approach to the economic crisis stands in marked contrast with the approach of the gangsters running US economic policy. The gangsters are using the crisis as an opportunity to steal from taxpayers and to finance their misdeeds and exorbitant salaries with Federal Reserve loans. Their shills among economists and the financial press tell the people that the solution is to fatten up the banks with funds so they will resume lending to an over-indebted public that will then return to the shopping malls.

This unrealistic approach to a serious crisis indicates a leadership crisis on top of an economic crisis.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.

Holder for AG "Impeachable" Qualifications?

2009-01-21T09:52:00.001-07:00

Attorney General

President-elect Obama’s pick for Attorney General is Eric Holder. Let’s do a quick review of his career. As the Deputy US Attorney General he was instrumental in an investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department to try to discover if there was a department-wide “pattern or practice” of violation of civil rights stemming from the corruption scandal in the Rampart division. In that situation officers had beaten, shot, extorted, and framed drug dealers. LAPD Chief Parks came down on the situation like a ton of bricks.

Subsequent investigation by the DOJ found that there was no evidence of department-wide corruption. Nevertheless, when Chief Parks and Mayor Riordan called Mr. Holder and asked that DOJ back off after finding no further corruption, Mr. Holder seemed to redouble his efforts. The LAPD agreed to a consent decree to keep out of court. According to the city, it is costs the LAPD $50 million annually to live up to that decree. In this time of shrinking revenues to cities and states across the country, even a city the size of Los Angeles can scarcely afford those kinds of penalties, especially when no further evidence of wrongdoing is found.

In the late 1990’s the DOJ, under the direction of Deputy US Attorney General Holder, held numerous “racial profiling” conferences, primarily the work of the ACLU. If a police department had an arrest rate that did not match racial demographics they faced significant federal litigation, championed by the ACLU. When police departments across the country are more concerned about federal litigation than fighting crime, we are all put in jeopardy.

Let’s take a quick look at Mr. Holder’s judgment. In the waning days of President Clinton’s second administration, one of the Democrat Party’s heavy contributors was Denise Rich, the ex-wife of millionaire fugitive Mark Rich. She gave substantial donations to the party. She also gave substantial donations to President Clinton’s library fund. Mr. Holder played a significant role in obtaining a presidential pardon for Mr. Rich. In all fairness, Mr. Holder has said that he regrets his association with this pardon.

In 1999, 16 members of the Puerto Rican terrorist Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN) received presidential pardons due to Mr. Holder’s direct intervention. These terrorists had, up to that time, been associated with “more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and injury to hundreds of others,” reported the Baltimore Sun. These are bad people who are now allowed to walk among their potential victims. Mr. Holder has stated that does not regret his role in these pardons.

During his confirmation hearing, when questioned about Guantanamo Bay prison, he advocated closing the facility. My question to Mr. Holder would be, where are you going to put the prisoners incarcerated there? If you turn them loose and send them home, statistics show that most terrorists in Guantanamo who are turned loose return to the fight against the US and our alleys. Is he going to release them on bail to await trial? That’s just what we need, terrorists bent on our destruction given a free trip to the US so they can continue their fight on our home ground.

Also during his confirmation hearing, he said that he would respect the Supreme Court decision in the DC vs. Heller case which held that the Washington DC gun ban was unconstitutional. However, during arguments being heard in that case he signed on to Janet Reno’s amicus brief urging that the gun ban be upheld. The amicus brief stated that “the position of the Department of Justice, from Franklin Roosevelt through Bill Clinton, was that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia..( "Brief for Former Department of Justice Officials as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners". American Bar Association.) “Holder said that overturning the 1976 law ‘opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets.’” (Nakamura, David; Barnes, Robert (March 10, 2007). "D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out" (Article), Metro: Special Reports, The Washington Post, p. A01. Retrieved on November 19, 2008. )

While Mr. Holder says that he will respect the decision of the Supreme Court, what will be his tact to subvert our 2^nd Amendment rights?

While the Democrats and media did not properly vet their candidate, the president-elect is following right along in the same vein. His Attorney General candidate is tainted to the point of being completely impeachable in any case.

As usual, I welcome your comments and discussion.

This posting may be viewed at http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com.

Dan

Leon Panetta for CIA - With Apologies.

2009-01-21T00:26:00.002-07:00

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCI)

While this is not a cabinet post, it is arguably of near equal importance. President Obama has tapped Leon Panetta for this crucial job. Having come out of the Intelligence community in my former life, I think I have a fair idea of the requisite qualifications for this position.

Above all, the incumbent should have a solid working knowledge of the Intelligence Community, preferably by having worked in the field for a number of years. The incumbent must be a manager with extreme talent for coalition building, not coalitions of foreign countries, but coalitions within his own agency. Intelligence professionals tend to be very independent with delving minds. Whoever leads this agency will have to be able to have or develop an understanding and appreciation of the Intelligence Process as well as the Intelligence Professional very early into the job. Anyone who moves into the job with the intention of changing the agency right off the bat may as well try to move Mt. Rushmore.

I believe that changing the CIA is possible, but only if the case for the need for change is made strongly enough that all personnel within the agency understand the need and assist in that change. Otherwise, attempting to change such an organization staffed with long-term professionals will be a useless and frustrating venture. Mr. Panetta has been highly critical of the agency for some time. This makes me think that he has a predetermined agenda that he will be taking to his new job if he is confirmed.

Those are my going-in thoughts. Let’s look at the DCI designee and see how he fits the bill. We will start by looking at his biography. He went into the Army in 1964 as a second lieutenant and was discharged as a first lieutenant in 1966. I seem to recall some kind of disturbance in Southeast Asia around that time; however I found no reference to that event in Mr. Panetta’s biography. While he was in the Army he was the chief of operations and planning of intelligence at Fort Ord. He is a Distinguished Scholar in the California State University System, lecturing on public policy at Santa Clara University. He worked as an assistant to Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel and HEW secretary Robert Finch before being elected to the House of Representatives, as a Democrat, where he served from 1977 to 1993. His focus in the House seemed to be budget, social, and environmental issues. He was tapped to serve as President Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1994 until 1997. For the last 10 years he and his wife have served as Directors of the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy

During his time in Congress he held four chairman positions, none of which had anything to do with Intelligence. Except for these chairman positions and the one chief of staff position, I was able to find no managerial or leadership experience. I do not consider two years as a second lieutenant in charge of operations and planning of intelligence at a state-side Army base as appropriate leadership experience to qualify him for DCI; although, he has had more managerial experience than President Obama.

Concerning this appointment I have a couple of questions for the president. If Mr. Panetta is so qualified for the position of DCI, why did you feel it necessary to apologize to Senator Feinstein for making the selection? You are now the presumptive leader of the free world. Why are you not acting like it? There seems to be a severe lack of confidence in your leadership style.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Stimulus: Mob Museum for Democrat REIDs home state

2009-01-18T22:21:00.003-07:00

LAS VEGAS SUN

THE ECONOMY:

Got stimulus? We’ve got a project list

Mob museum, makes cut to get on list laden

with road building and repair work

By Brian Eckhouse

Sat, Jan 17, 2009

As debate over the size and scope of a federal stimulus bill intensifies in Washington, regional leaders could soon be engaged in a turf war for their piece of the pie.

Local jurisdictions have compiled lengthy wish lists of potentially “shovel-ready” projects, or those that could be under construction within 180 days. Among them: a $200 million project to build a more efficient ramp from the airport connector onto eastbound Interstate 215, $63 million in regional road repair and, of course, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman’s proposed $60 million mob museum downtown — a request that is being roundly rejected on Capitol Hill.

On Thursday, the day an $825 billion stimulus bill was pitched by House Democrats, Clark County Manager Virginia Valentine submitted a lengthy list of projects — including the mob museum — to the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition. The coalition, an area advisory group, approved the list, passing it on to the state’s congressional delegation.

An early economic study by market research firm Applied Analysis found that if all 348 projects were to be undertaken, they would support $3.38 billion in wage and salary payments, as well as $7.77 billion in aggregate economic activity. That would mean for every $1 spent on infrastructure, $1.56 would pass through the county economy.

Leading House and Senate Democrats have pledged a stimulus bill devoid of earmarks, or specified projects.

The House Democrats’ stimulus plan boasts investments in energy, education, health care and jobs-rich highway construction, at a time when states — including Nevada — are slashing budgets, noted David Cherry, a spokesman for Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley. The Senate is expected to introduce its own stimulus package soon. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants a recovery bill ready for the president’s signature by mid-February.

Some stimulus funding could be immediately available. Congressional staffers say the House bill,

proposed by Wisconsin Democrat Dave Obey, appears to indicate a mix of direct disbursement to local jurisdictions and a competitive grant process. The United States Conference of Mayors is pushing hard for direct access to the money.

That’s a channel preferred by Goodman and Henderson’s city manager.

“It gives you more certainty and it gets those stimulus projects moving faster,” said Mary Kay Peck, Henderson’s city manager. “You want it to be effective? Cut out a layer.”

But if a competitive process remains, one Washington lobbyist with ties to Nevada anticipates a feeding frenzy among adjacent jurisdictions here. Peck and County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, however, doubt there will be much jockeying. Giunchigliani hopes Reid will bring a haul of dollars back to Nevada, and expects area cities and the county to prioritize projects by tiers as a way to determine which projects should go forward first.

Obama's Cabinet

2009-01-18T12:35:00.002-07:00

As I have told you, it is not my intention to give Barrack Obama a pass on anything. However, I have to admit, having him as the president-elect is a gold mine for a guy like me. There will always be something to write about.

He has not even taken office and he is giving us a great deal about which to be concerned. I am not going to address his massive money give-away which will put succeeding generations of Americans behind the eight ball for many years.

This time I am going to address his gross lack of judgment. One of the more stellar traits that Ronald Reagan had was to be able to surround himself with experts; people who clearly understood all aspects of the job they were given. We are being told how smart our next president is. Let’s look at his display of intelligence in the area of surrounding himself with experts. This will be the first in a series of discussions about the president-elect’s judgment with respect to his appointees. Other discussions about his judgment, in general, will come later.

Treasury Secretary

The current flap concerns his choice for Treasury Secretary. Tim Geithner has served as director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund; president and CEO of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, this position doubles as the vice chair of the Federal Open Market Committee which sets interest rates; chairman of the G-10’s Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems of the Bank for International Settlements; and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Group of Thirty. This is an impressive resume.

Looking at events he has directly influenced, he was the architect of the Bear Sterns bailout. I asked this question of my colleagues at the time, why? Where in the US Constitution does it say that it is the responsibility of the federal government to keep failed companies afloat? Of course, one could argue that since it was the federal government’s policies that caused many of the banking failures, they had a responsibility to fix what they broke.

As the head money guy for the federal government he will be responsible for keeping track of all of our finances; this includes being overall in charge of the Internal Revenue Service. That would imply that he has a good understanding of our tax laws and is in compliance with them. But wait; what about the $43,000 in federal self employment taxes he failed to pay? Interestingly enough, he was working with the IMF at the time. It is the policy of the IMF to reimburse their folks for their self employment tax; it sounds, to me, like he was pocketing some extra perk money. Hmmm! Was it just an oversight that he employed an immigrant maid for three months after her work authorization papers had expired (that makes the maid an illegal)?

An individual like Mr. Geithner who recklessly flaunts the law as the Treasury Secretary makes me a bit queasy when I think about how my income taxes are assessed and how this money is managed. Does this appointment reflect sound judgment, or does the president-elect share Mr. Geithner’s ethos?

The president-elect has nominated Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. This is arguably one of the most important cabinet posts to be considered, just above Defense and Attorney General.

Let’s look at Senator Clinton’s qualifications. At the beginning of her husband’s presidency she worked diligently on the failed national health program. As First Lady, she travelled to foreign lands with her husband when he was president. She was elected and reelected to the Senate from a state where she not a resident until she started shopping around for an opportunity. She, most recently served on the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Special Committee on Aging and the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has. She has been an advocate for protecting our constitutional rights, such as her support to Roe v. Wade. But wait, how does that protect the constitutional rights of the unborn? (Sorry, I digress)

One major question I would put to both the president-elect and the Secretary of State designate would be, “How do you square Senator Clinton’s husband’s globetrotting fund raising with doing the business of the United States.” We have seen prospective elected officials and appointed bureaucrats get raked over the coals for their family’s activities, where is the righteous indignation about the Clinton money machine?

So far, I have not found any qualifications with respect to foreign affairs (oops, I should have said foreign diplomacy). This nomination for one of the most important and powerful cabinet positions makes no sense. There is no history of foreign diplomacy and very little displayed interest except to criticize existing policy.

I would argue that the president-elect has erred in judgment yet again. Normally, one or two errors in judgment could be excused, but the list is growing. My next posting tomorrow will continue the discussion.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

The Castle Doctrine Reform Bill

2009-01-18T08:11:00.001-07:00

The Colorado Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee will be voting on the Castle Doctrine Reform Bill soon. The current version known as the “Make My Day” law says that if you are in your home and someone comes in and you are in fear for your life or the life of someone in your home you have the right to use force up to and including deadly force to prevent that harm. The Castle Doctrine Reform Bill would extend that right to businesses.

In a nut-shell it states that any owner, employer or employee in a business has that same right in a business that is afforded in a home. While I would like to see this bill written in broader terms, it is certainly a step in the right direction.

I urge each of you to contact your State Senator to work for the passage of this urgent bill and specifically, contact the committee members to vote it out of committee for consideration of the full Senate. Once it is passed we will work to pass it in the State House.

Contact information for the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee are listed below:

Chairman Suzanne Williams (D-28)
Phone: 303-866-3432
E-mail: suzanne.williams.senate@state.co.us

State Senator Bob Bacon (D-14) (Vice-Chair)
Phone: 303-866-4841
E-mail: bob.bacon.senate@state.co.us

State Senator Betty Boyd (D-21)
Phone: 303-866-4857
E-mail: betty.boyd.senate@state.co.us

State Senator Bill Cadman (R-10)
Phone: 303-866-2737
E-mail: bill.cadman.senate@state.co.us

State Senator David Shulthies (R-9)
Phone: 303-866-4835
E-mail: senatorschultheis@gmail.com

The senate bill can be seen here: Senate Bill 8.

Dan

Daniel C. Lanotte

dlanotte@falconbroadband.net

719-683-5506

Rush after your Guns

2009-01-15T21:29:00.002-07:00

On 9 January 2009, Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL) introduced H.R. 45

(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h45ih.txt.pdf) which, if passed, will require anyone purchasing a firearm to obtain a license to do so. Additionally, it will require that all sales will be recorded. This bill is being called the “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.”

H.R. 45 is contrary to the intent and letter of the 2^nd amendment. I offer a couple of quotes by our Founders:

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." ---James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

Registration and confiscation of firearms was one of the first actions Adolph Hitler took in the subjugation of “inferior” people. On November 8, 1938, The New York Times reported,

The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.

This led up to Kristallnacht (The Night of Broken Glass) on November 10, the night the Nazis went through Berlin and smashed and looted all things Jewish, shops, temples, stores, everything. The Jews did not have any way to protect themselves or their property.

The Nazi story is probably the most well-known but there have been many other examples of government abuse of its citizens. Turkey instituted gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, a million and a half defenseless Armenians were exterminated by the government. Joseph Stalin established gun control in 1929 and over the next 24 years, until his death, 20 million dissidents were exterminated by his military and secret police.

Looking at the immediate consequences of H.R. 45, we here in the US have already seen the result of gun control. Washington DC, our capitol, had a strict gun ban in place for decades. Chicago has had nearly as restrictive gun regulations in place. Those are two of the most dangerous cities in the country. The reason for that is simple. Law abiding citizens refrain from owning guns because it is against the law. They have respect for the laws of our land, no matter that they cause these same law abiding citizens to be in danger of their lives. But if guns are against the law in these cities, why are citizens in danger; obviously, because the bad guys don’t give a hoot about the laws.

Look at the callous murder of two teenagers here in Colorado Springs last Thursday. What was the trigger for the event, the theft of an IPOD. Two kids were killed because of an IPOD. The police have tagged this as a gang killing. The gangs do not care about laws. That puts the rest of us at their mercy. I am not implying that the two young men who were killed were innocent bystanders. I have no idea what their situation was. But the fact that this event happened at all points to how dangerous our world is just from the criminal element. The young man who was arrested for the murder has freely admitted to his criminal act, with no apparent remorse.

Now a group of gun-grabbers wants to make it even more dangerous for law abiding citizens by forcing us to get a license to purchase firearms. I find this to be unacceptable behavior on the part of an elected official. All military personnel are required to swear to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Does this requirement not extend to our Congressmen and Senators?

I urge all Americans to contact their Congressman and urge that they vigorously oppose this legislation.

As always, I welcome comments and discussion.

Dan

In order to form a more perfect Union.

2008-12-29T23:51:00.000-07:00

I’m probably going to get myself in trouble with this one. I would like to address the concept of unions in this country. I believe in putting the bottom line up front. That way there is no guessing my point of view. I am not a fan of labor unions. Now, that is my point of view.

Early unions or guilds in America played important parts in the struggle for independence. Just one example is that the “hosts” at the Boston Tea Party were members of the carpenters union. It is natural for us here in America to equate unions with independence.

There are few people who have studied American history would argue that the organized labor movement back in the early to mid 19^th century was necessary. Early factories were a hold-over from the sweat-shops of England. Child labor laws and safety regulations were non-existent. In the late 19^th century the general attitude was that labor had no rights at all. Anytime there was a strike, it was a mere rubber-stamp exercise to get a federal court injunction to end a strike. If the strike did not end, federal troops were called in to break it.

In 1902, the anthracite coal miners as members of the United Mine Workers struck and closed down all coal mining for the entire summer. The only reason the strike lasted as long as it did was because the mine owners refused to agree to arbitration. President Roosevelt intervened by appointing a board of arbitration. The strike was over in five days.

In those early days, there was no attitude of commonality of effort between labor and management. Management failed to understand that without labor, there was no company. Labor failed to understand that without a profitable business there would be no wages. The battle-lines were drawn and they were inviolate.

Those attitudes, at least on the side of management, have changed. Fifty years ago, I remember my dad, who was a trucking executive tell me of some of the early days of Teamsters organization in the 1940’s. Many of the smaller trucking companies would allow drivers to use company vehicles to and from home. After the Teamsters came in, that perk was not written into the labor contract and the members suffered for it. The trucking company owners/managers had been more like co-workers that bosses. The union forced an antagonistic relationship on all parties.

Looking at unions of today, they are losing membership at unprecedented rates. There are a number of reasons for this, but probably the most significant one is that they have been too successful. The large salaries the unions have negotiated for their members force the retail of those goods produced by union members to become unaffordable to the average purchaser. With extraordinarily high salaries, entire industries are finding it much more cost effective to move manufacturing out of the country, thereby depriving American workers of any salary.

When you go to the department store, or the mega-stores, it is nearly impossible to find American made products. Wal-Mart, which used to pride itself on selling American products, has given up and now sells a very large percentage of merchandise from China, India, and Indonesia because the same American made products just cost too much for their customers.

The United States used to have the corner on the high-tech manufacturing market. This is no longer the case. How many of you have called a Dell Computer representative and spoken to a native American-English speaking technician? If you have, it was a long time ago.

Now the big three auto makers are going to Congress with their collective hands out because they are in serious danger of going under. What are they planning to use the money for, reorganizing, re-tooling, or propping up their union obligations? The extreme success that the unions have had in negotiating wages and retirement benefits has forced the big three to a position of unsupportability. That is not to say the big three front offices have not made their share of mistakes. In addition to routinely caving to the unions, not having the ability to quickly switch manufacturing emphasis based on existing conditions has a devastating effect on profitability.

Staying with the auto industry, the United Auto Workers (UAW) is so powerful and has such a strangle hold on the industry that the front office boys have to go to Congress with their hands out because the UAW wants to make sure their flow of cash continues unabated. Now, Congress is going to give billions of our dollars to the big three and we will be saddled with this enormous debt for the rest of our lives and probably for the rest of my grandchildren’s lives. To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, “A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.”

Well friends, we are way past real money here. It is time the unions play by real world rules and not rules for children who have to have everything handed to them. I have been haranguing on the UAW, but that is not the only union in great need of a wake-up call.

Probably the most powerful union in the United States is the National Education Association (NEA). This union has such a strangle hold on the education of our children that parents have little or no say over what goes on in the classroom. However, that is a subject for another posting.

As always, your comments and discussion are welcome.

Dan

Devaluing the Dollars in Your Bank Account

2008-12-27T13:51:00.002-07:00

We are in the middle of an economic crisis. Wow! Is that a shock to any of you? Let me start off by saying that I am no economist. I’m just an average guy who is trying to look at this situation in the most logical way possible.

Here is the way I see it. In the mid ‘60s, President Johnson brought about the Great Society which, among other things, sought to alleviate the “crushing weight of poverty.” He wanted to solve these problems with a new form of “creative federalism.” Those of you who regularly read this column will remember my posting of 21 Oct of this year:

So, what did Johnson mean by “creative federalism?” In his speech, he urged the audience to “join in the battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty…. To join in the battle to build the Great Society, to prove that our material progress is only the foundation on which we will build a richer life of mind and spirit.” These are wonderful thoughts and goals; no one will debate that. However, Johnson’s intent was to make those goals achievable through government action, not through the sweat and perseverance of the individual. As a result, the welfare rolls jumped drastically as government agencies tried to “distribute the wealth”….

The slippery slope was firmly set in place.

Let’s fast forward now. Under President Carter, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed. This was a law that forced lenders to violate good commercial practices by making loans that were, at best, questionable and at worst, unsupportable. The slippery slope had just developed a more pronounced down-angle.

Once again, let’s fast forward. Under President Clinton, even more disadvantaged borrowers were able to take out mortgages to achieve the “American Dream,” irrespective of their ability to support that dream. President Clinton “encouraged” lenders to even further violate good business practices and make more money available to these disadvantaged borrowers. Remember the mantra that there are more homeowners in America than ever before? Did anyone in Washington ever bother to look to see whether these homeowners could afford the “American Dream” they had achieved?

One of the great joys in my life has been the accomplishment of a goal through hard work. When I want something enough to work for it, the satisfaction that comes through achievement makes all the effort worth it. The message sent by the federal government to the so-called “disadvantaged” was that it did not want them to feel left out; therefore serious shortcuts were made available to them. Nobody bothered to tell them that they had to work to support their dream.

Once again, let’s fast forward to today. We have had the collapse of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and a host of others. The way I see it, there are two culprits in this debacle. The first is the federal government which had the arrogance to interfere with the free market system. This was wrong for many reasons. The Founders were wise enough to keep the federal government out of the free market. I am no constitutional scholar, but I am aware of only one situation where the Constitution allows the federal government to get involved in commerce within the US, and that is when there is a dispute between the States (some of you scholars can correct me on that one).

The other culprit is business and industry allowing the federal government to get away with their meddling. Truly astute business professionals should have been able to foresee the coming economic collapse caused by the meddling of the federal government and stopped it.

Now we are soon to be saddled with over one trillion dollars worth of debt that could have been avoided with the foresight of a sophomore economics student. What makes this situation even worse is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are fighting each other to see who can give which industry more of our money. The latest polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans bitterly object to the bail-outs taking place, but Congress seems to be made up of people whose wisdom is so superior that they do not need to listen to their constituents.

There are a few brave Congressmen and Senators who have attempted to stand up against this tax against our future, but not enough. We have about a year to put together a slate of candidates that will decisively overturn this rampant growth of our debt, debt that is a direct result of government interference in the marketplace.

This interference in the marketplace is not limited to the front office; it extends down to the union halls and the massive corruption and power flexing that exists in the union hierarchy. That will be the subject of my next posting.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

This posting is available on http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com.

Daniel C. Lanotte

dlanotte@falconbroadband.net

No "PASS" for Obama Administration

2008-12-26T12:35:00.001-07:00

We have a new administration due to take charge on 20 January. For those of us of the Conservative persuasion, it was a disappointing election season.

A large number of people were disenchanted with the Republican ticket that was foisted on us by the main-stream-media. Many of these people stayed at home instead of voting for the “lesser of two evils.” Because of this, we may deserve what we will have to endure for at least the next two years.

There is a fairly wide variety of opinions on how we Conservatives are to approach the new regime. Numerous pundits have advocated sitting by and give the new administration and their Congressional Stooges a chance; that they may surprise us (oops, did I give myself away?). I am not cut from that cloth.

I firmly believe that it is our responsibility to hold their collective feet to the fire. Obama made a lot of very liberal and socialistic claims during the campaign but now that he has been elected he seems to be a bit of a mixed bag. He is keeping Gates as SECDEF, but his choice for attorney general, Eric Holder, is an avowed gun grabber.

When you step back and examine where he came from you have to realize that his political roots are definitely not conservative but are they truly liberal? They may be best described as opportunistic. The political machine that spawned Obama, Chicago, is opportunistic to the extreme. Looking at the “auctioning off” of Obama’s Senate seat, this should not shock the astute political observer.

I was gratified to see that Obama’s organization took on the investigation of how much contact his people had with Governor Blagojevich concerning the auction. On the surface, the fast reaction of the Obama organization is laudable; do I believe any findings they will “uncover,” unlikely.

I do not intend to give the Obama administration a “pass” for one instant. I urge all Conservatives to adopt the same attitude.

As always, I welcome comments/discussion.

This posting is also available on http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com.

Dan

Daniel C. Lanotte

dlanotte@falconbroadband.net

President Reagan's Favorite Christmas Gift

2008-12-20T10:11:00.000-07:00

President Reagan's Favorite Christmas Gift
By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
December 20, 2008

"Christmas has always been a very special day for as long back as I can remember," Ronald Reagan once wrote in a letter. "Maybe this was due to my mother and her joyous spirit about the day."

Although President Reagan could have spent his White House Christmases with family at his beloved ranch in Santa Barbara, Calif., he instead stayed in Washington, D.C. His sacrifice allowed Secret Service agents and other aides to spend Christmas at home with their families. He was a thoughtful person.

Reagan grew up in a desperately poor family. His father was a shoe sales clerk who had trouble keeping a job, partly because he was an alcoholic. "There were very few decorated trees in the years of my growing up. But never defeated, my mother would with ribbon and crepe paper decorate a table or create a cardboard fireplace out of a packing box. And she always remembered whose birthday it was and made sure we knew the meaning of Christmas."

His mother Nelle was an optimistic Christian woman who always looked for the positive side in every situation. President Reagan explained, no matter how bad things were for their family, his mother was always finding someone worse off than them. Reagan's most vivid early memory of his mother was of her with a covered dish taking it to a needy family. Nelle was always helping others.

Perhaps those lean years are one reason why Ronald Reagan once said a particular Christmas gift was especially memorable for him. It was his favorite gift and it came from his brother Neil. He called it "a gift truly in keeping with the spirit of the day." Neil had been struggling to find a suitable gift for his brother; they both were middle-aged adults and both men had successful careers.

Neil solved his dilemma by writing a letter. In the letter, Neil told his brother he had found a truly needy family with small children "who wouldn't go to bed with dreams of Santa Claus in their head." Ronald Reagan recounted how his brother Neil changed that and "became Santa himself, providing a Christmas from tree to turkey plus toys and gifts for all." Included in Neil's letter was a very detailed blow-by-blow account describing the "joy of the children and the grateful happiness of their mother."

This act of charitable giving by Neil reads like the end of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" and became President Reagan's most unforgettable Christmas gift. He called it "a gift that will never grow old," as he would re-read the letter or think about the family's reaction to Neil's generosity.

Helping and serving others gives true joy and happiness, not only to the recipient but even more so to the giver. Maybe Neil's gift was particularly touching to Reagan because he knew what it was like to go without.

Today, there are still families out there who are in difficult circumstances and they face a bleak Christmas. A gift like Neil's may be the perfect gift for you to give to that someone in your life who has everything. Your church or locally based charities such as the Salvation Army are aware of needy families. You could make a difference and receive special Christmas joy by giving to a family who has hit hard times. Then write a letter similar to Neil's describing the family's reactions and give it as a gift. This is the true spirit of Christmas.

On Christmas Eve 1984, speaking to the nation, President Reagan said, "families and friends across America will join together in caroling parties and Christmas Eve services. Together, we'll renew that spirit of faith, peace, and giving which has always marked the character of our people."

At the end of his tale, Dickens writes, "it was always said of [Scrooge], that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May this be said of all of us. And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!"

Merry Christmas!

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/fmb_12201.shtml

Where’s the money? Well, we have it, thank you.

2008-12-17T12:08:00.000-07:00

A word from our friends at Americans for Prosperity Foundation

Our state has been able to weather the financial storm better than others because we restrict state spending and tax increases through our state constitution. The Colorado Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) has been an effective tool for reigning in government spending and regulation. It’s been a model to the nation and an inspiration for other anti-tax movements across the country.

But many policy groups have been attacking it lately. And Governor Ritter and the leadership in the state legislature supported a measure on the ballot this past November to take away important spending limits which TABOR enforces. But Colorado’s economy has fared better than other states. You are not hearing the cry for federal funds from the Governor because we are not in a financial crisis at this moment.

Find out more about how Colorado compares to other states and why we need to remain vigilant to hold the line on government expansion by downloading and sharing your copy of the Keeping Colorado Competitive report.

Download your copy here.

The effort to open up the state’s checkbook seems to be moving forward. It looks like there is interest in providing full online access to Colorado government spending and contracts through state law. AFP supports transparency in government as the best tool to hold our elected officials accountable-- Republican and Democrat.

You will be hearing more about this issue beginning in January. Watch for updates.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

With only eight days left before most people take Christmas break, I wanted to personally wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. We’re grateful for all your help and support during this year, and we hope you have a wonderful season and time with family and friends.

End of year donations

Friends, this is an important time for us as we prepare for a busy legislative session in 2009. And we need your help to fund our efforts. Please consider a generous end of the year gift to Americans for Prosperity Foundation. We make it easy for you to give. Please visit our website to make a gift. Thank you again for your help.

Have a merry and wonderful Christmas.

Jim Pfaff
Colorado State Director
Americans for Prosperity Foundation

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is the nation’s premier grassroots organization committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits.

For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org

Postponing Reality

2008-12-17T11:52:00.001-07:00

Postponing Reality By Thomas Sowell
December 17, 2008

Some of us were raised to believe that reality is inescapable. But that just shows how far behind the times we are. Today, reality is optional. At the very least, it can be postponed.

Kids in school are not learning? Not a problem. Just promote them on to the next grade anyway. Call it "compassion," so as not to hurt their "self-esteem."
Can't meet college admissions standards after they graduate from high school? Denounce those standards as just arbitrary barriers to favor the privileged, and demand that exceptions be made.

Can't do math or science after they are in college? Denounce those courses for their rigidity and insensitivity, and create softer courses that the students can pass to get their degrees.

Once they are out in the real world, people with diplomas and degrees-- but with no real education-- can hit a wall. But by then the day of reckoning has been postponed for 15 or more years. Of course, the reckoning itself can last the rest of their lives.

The current bailout extravaganza is applying the postponement of reality democratically-- to the rich as well as the poor, to the irresponsible as well as to the responsible, to the inefficient as well as to the efficient. It is a triumph of the non-judgmental philosophy that we have heard so much about in high-toned circles.

We are told that the collapse of the Big Three automakers in Detroit would have repercussions across the country, causing mass layoffs among firms that supply the automobile makers with parts, and shutting down automobile dealerships from coast to coast.

A renowned economist of the past, J.A. Schumpeter, used to refer to progress under capitalism as "creative destruction"-- the replacement of businesses that have outlived their usefulness with businesses that carry technological and organizational creativity forward, raising standards of living in the process.
Indeed, this is very much like what happened a hundred years ago, when that new technological wonder, the automobile, wreaked havoc on all the forms of transportation built up around horses.

For thousands of years, horses had been the way to go, whether in buggies or royal coaches, whether pulling trolleys in the cities or plows on the farms. People had bet their futures on something with a track record of reliable success going back many centuries.

Were all these people to be left high and dry? What about all the other people who supplied the things used with horses-- oats, saddles, horse shoes and buggies? Wouldn't they all go falling like dominoes when horses were replaced by cars?

Unfortunately for all the good people who had in good faith gone into all the various lines of work revolving around horses, there was no compassionate government to step in with a bailout or a stimulus package.

They had to face reality, right then and right there, without even a postponement.

Who would have thought that those who displaced them would find themselves in a similar situation a hundred years later?

Actually the automobile industry is not nearly in as bad a situation now as the horse-based industries were then. There is no replacement for the automobile anywhere on the horizon. Nor has the public decided to do without cars indefinitely.

While Detroit's Big Three are laying off thousands of workers, Toyota is hiring thousands of workers right here in America, where a substantial share of all our Toyotas are manufactured.

Will this save Detroit or Michigan? No.

Detroit and Michigan have followed classic liberal policies of treating businesses as prey, rather than as assets. They have helped kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. So have the unions. So have managements that have gone along to get along.

Toyota, Honda and other foreign automakers are not heading for Detroit, even though there are lots of experienced automobile workers there. They are avoiding the rust belts and the policies that have made those places rust belts.

A bailout of Detroit's Big Three would be only the latest in the postponements of reality. As for automobile dealers, they can probably sell Toyotas just as easily as they sold Chevvies. And Toyotas will require just as many tires per car, as well as other parts from automobile parts suppliers.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

Bombs in Bombay - What the terrorists attacks in India mean to the US.

2008-12-01T16:35:00.002-07:00

Over the last several days the world has witnessed incredible carnage in the name of religion. Fox News reports “Indian police said Sunday that the only surviving gunman told them he belongs to the Pakistani militant group Lakshkar-e-Taiba.

The group is seen as a creation of the Pakistani intelligence to help fight India in the disputed Kashmir region. Another group, Jaish-e-Mohammed, has also operated in Kashmir. Both are reported to be linked to Al Qaeda.” In that part of the world, religion is inextricably linked to politics and foreign policy.

We are also hearing reports that Muslims across the Middle East are condemning the violence which has killed more than 170 people. These “conscientious Muslims” are afraid that the violence will tarnish the image the world has of Muslims. I find this attitude astounding to the point of hilarity. Palestinians have been shelling Israeli settlements for years. The only reason they have not amassed the kill rate of the Lakshkar-e-Taibi is because they are so inept. They keep shooting small rockets into the Israeli settlements with no idea where they will land.

When you compare the average Muslim extremist attack with that undertaken in Mumbai last week, it is like comparing the bush league with the majors.

The BBC reported that the planning for the Mumbai attacks was extensive. At least one ship was hijacked and used as a mother ship to transport the attackers close to shore. They then went ashore in dinghies in two to four-man teams to conduct their attacks. The targets were preselected. All indications are that the attacks were rehearsed and well choreographed.

The attackers were very well armed for the selected targets to affect maximum casualties. While a large number of people were killed, it doesn’t look like those killed were completely random victims. The attackers were specifically looking for people with American and British passports. They also specifically targeted the residence of an Israeli priest who had frequent Israeli guests.

This attack shows a high degree of planning and coordination, possibly with the complicity of elements of Pakistani Intelligence.

On the other hand, looking at the average Muslim extremist; young Muslims, mostly young men, are more than willing to strap on bomb vests and blow themselves up along with anyone who happens to be close by. But this is in the name of – well, I don’t know what they are trying to accomplish – I guess they are trying in some perverted way to advance Muslim principles.

In my view this is a prime example of cowardice, not on the part of the suicide bombers, but on their handlers. If it is so glorious to die for Allah, why are they recruiting the young, passionate believers? Why do they not prove their devotion and blow themselves into the arms of their 72 virgins?

While fanatics can and often do create havoc, they are not the major concern for America; rather, it is the calculating and organized groups that may or may not be affiliated with Al Qaeda. However, certainly Al Qaeda has been an inspirational influence in the world of Islamic terrorism.

The planning that took place before the Mumbai attacks reflect the thoroughness of the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks. I’m sure the planning did not take nearly as long, but it was certainly as thorough. This shows that the enemy is still willing and capable to undertake the requisite planning for a successful attack.

What really worries me is that the exact same scenario can be used right here on American shores with only a few alterations to the plans. These highly coordinated groups would like nothing better than to conduct a successful attack against a high profile event.

With a change in administration and a change in national emphasis the next couple of years will tell how the world of terrorism views the United States. If we are viewed as ineffective or uncommitted to the war on terror we can expect renewed targeting of US assets, if not on US soil itself. Vigilance and pressure on the terrorists is the only thing that will keep their attacks from our soil.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments. This posting can also be viewed at: http://carpentersmate.blogspot.com.

Daniel C. Lanotte

dlanotte@falconbroadband.net

...................The Voice of the Rockies ..............: There oughta be a Law - Yes on 46 !

2008-11-01T15:49:00.000-06:00

.: There oughta be a Law - Yes on 46 !

Obama, Powell and Popularity

2008-11-01T13:30:00.002-06:00

By Thomas Sowell

Among all the people who are now scrambling to get on the Obama bandwagon, none is likely to impress more people than Colin Powell — especially people who know no more about the specifics of Colin Powell's actions than the specifics of Barack Obama's.

Like Ross Perot, Colin Powell once had such support from the American people that there was nothing to stop him from going all the way to White House — and beyond to greatness — except his own shortcomings. Both squandered historic opportunities.

One of the first signs of those shortcomings was Powell's flip-flop on the issue of racial quotas and preferences. In his memoirs, he opposed such policies. But at the Republican convention, he loudly demanded them, complete with a raised fist, which was hardly his usual style.

What he was trying to prove, we may never know. What he did prove was how unreliable he was.

More recently, Colin Powell sat silent while two lives were ruined in a special prosecutor's zeal to get a conviction in a case involving a non-crime: telling columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

The full story is told in Novak's book, "The Prince of Darkness." What is relevant here is that a New York Times reporter went to jail for refusing to tell who had revealed Ms. Plame's occupation to her, and White House aide Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury because his memory of what he said did not match the memories of some reporters — whose memories did not match each other's.

All the while Colin Powell knew that his own subordinate, Richard Armitage, was the one who had told Robert Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Neither Armitage nor anybody else was convicted for that because there was no crime to convict them of.

The only crimes were those created in the course of the investigation, unless the silence of Richard Armitage and Colin Powell are regarded as moral crimes.

Among the reasons given by Secretary Powell for supporting Barack Obama is that Obama can restore America's standing with foreign countries.

The idea that the United States must somehow rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the United Nations or NATO or "world opinion" is staggering, even though it is an idea very popular in the mainstream media.

The first duty of a President of the United States is to protect American interests — of which survival is number one — regardless of what others may say.

Virtually the whole world condemned Israel when it bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear facilities back in 1981. But Israel understood that its survival was more important than international popularity.

Let us hope that today's Israeli government understands that issue the same way as regards Iran, since ours may not.

Despite the media hype that we need to rehabilitate ourselves in the eyes of the world, the United States of America remains the number one destination of immigrants from around the world, some of whom take desperate chances with their lives to get here, whether across the waters of the Caribbean or by crossing our dangerous southwest desert.

Even when dozens of governments around the world join the United States in coordinated efforts to fight international terrorism, the media will call our actions "unilateral" if some demagogues in France or Germany spout off against us.

The American nuclear umbrella has enabled Western European nations to escape responsibility for their own military survival for more than half a century.

Lack of responsibility has bred irresponsibility, one sign of which are unionized troops in NATO and NATO bomber pilots who have office hours when they will and will not fly, not to mention NATO troops letting American troops handle the really dangerous fighting in Afghanistan.

Maybe the time is overdue for NATO to try to rehabilitate itself and for Americans to stop trying to be "citizens of the world."

2008-10-31T16:46:00.000-06:00

Republican Club of Falcon - 5th Congressional Candidate Forum

2008-10-31T01:46:00.010-06:00

Well it finally happened. A live candidate forum with all 3 candidates for the 5th Congressional district on one stage. The Republican Club of Falcon (RCF) pulled off what no other organization was able to put together this entire campaign season in this race. (see video link below).

Club spokesman Mark Shook told NewsFirst the event was "...a huge vote of confidence for the RCF by all three candidates who put their trust in the Falcon Republicans to have a fair, well run candidate forum..."

RCF choose Falcon area journalist Kathy Hare of the Falcon Herald as moderator.
NEWSMAN

District 5 opponents face off for first time
Colorado Springs Gazette
PERRY SWANSON
October 30, 2008 -
Candidates to represent Colorado's 5th Congressional District differed Thursday on everything from marriage to the economy.

The debate between Republican Doug Lamborn, Democrat Hal Bidlack and American Constitution Party candidate Brian Scott was the only face-to-face meeting of the opponents before Tuesday's election.

Lamborn said the government went too far recently when Congress and the president approved a $700 billion bailout package intended to loosen credit markets. He voted against the measure. Lamborn also spoke out against abortion, gay marriage and tax increases. But he appeared to try to shake the image of a stooge for the GOP that some opponents have said fits his voting record. By various measurements, Lamborn has voted with the Republican Party nearly all the time.

"I wouldn't be proud of being the most partisan member of government," Bidlack told the crowd of 100-some people who showed up for the debate at Sand Creek High School. Bidlack said if elected he would relentlessly seek ways to cooperate with the opposing party.

Lamborn said he would oppose his party if its agenda ran counter to the state's needs, and he has worked with Democrats. He and U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., have worked together to urge the establishment of a veterans' cemetery in southern Colorado, he said.

But, "I will not be a water carrier for Nancy Pelosi," Lamborn continued, referring to the Democratic speaker of the House.

Bidlack gave different opinions on virtually every issue. Bidlack said he, too, opposed the economic bailout package, but for different reasons. Congress approved the measure too fast, he said, and it was too kind to the people who caused the mess, he said.

"If you've got an arsonist who set fire to a building, you don't say, 'Here's another gallon of gas, go see if you can put it out,'" he said.

Bidlack said he personally opposes abortion, but he views a woman's right to chose as paramount and would vote "mostly" prochoice. He said the government shouldn't decide who's allowed to get married.

Brian Scott received applause a number of times for his views. He acknowledged, though, that as a member of a minor party he's unlikely to win the election. If he does win, Scott said his chief concern would be ending the war in Iraq. He said he would set up an office in Baghdad to call attention to the conflict.

Scott promised to serve only one term if elected. He said if he successfully ends the war he wouldn't need a second term, and if he fails he wouldn't deserve one.

LINK TO VIDEO of RCF CANDIDATE FORUM (Copy and Paste)

http://www.gazette.com/video/index.php?bcpid=1155184276&bclid=1155106690&bctid=1890047711

Why I am Voting Democrat this year !

2008-10-30T15:39:00.002-06:00

I'm voting Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I’m voting Democrat because I need the government to decide whether I am sick enough to need medical attention …and tell me which doctor I can go to.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on
a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job
of spending the money I earn than I would.

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they’ll now think we're good people.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if
it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They just need to break even and give the rest
away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who could NEVER get their agenda past the voters.

I'm voting Democrat because my head is so firmly planted where the sun doesn’t shine that it's unlikely I'll ever have another point of view.

2008-10-26T00:50:00.001-06:00

Political Trick or Treat

2008-10-24T18:07:00.000-06:00

Audacity of Mendacity

2008-10-17T20:00:00.000-06:00

by : Andy Pico,

Our country is on the verge of potentially electing a new Triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid together with The One’s sidekick, the Bumbling Biden, with the most radical, socialist agenda this country has ever seen in national politics. The Triumvirate could have a potentially filibuster proof senate majority able to ram through whatever far left radical measures dictated to the Triumvirate by their political backers within such groups as ACORN (currently under investigation for massive interstate voter fraud), Moveon.org and such Soros funded groups.

This coalition has a radical, leftist agenda that has nothing to do with preserving individual freedom, full employment, a robust economic climate or any of the key moral or social values this country has developed. Their entire methodology is built on deceit, fraud and intimidation of political opponents.

This Triumvirate has manufactured a great economic message focused on the current meltdown of the financial markets, aided and abetted by a complicit press which combines economic illiteracy with historical ignorance. The seeds of the current financial crisis were planted by the Democrat administration of Carter in the Community Redevelopment ACT and expanded by Clinton with the assistance of ACORN to strong arm lending institutions into making bad loans. The brief period of Republican control was unable to reform this coming, and predicted, financial meltdown due to Democrat obstructionism in Congress and in the courts.

Bill Clinton - "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

I certainly would not be one to call the Former President a liar.

The facts, unreported by a complicit press, is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were established by Democrats, staffed by Democrats, (the former executives of these failed institutions are currently part of the economics team on Obama’s campaign staff), “regulated” by Democrats and provided campaign contributions with taxpayer guaranteed funds to Democrats. Obama, in his extraordinarily short time in the US Senate, managed to skim the 3rd largest amount, barely behind the Democrat chairman of the committee which oversaw those organizations. While technically legal, this defines the worst kind of corruption.

That the architects of our current financial crisis are likely to be rewarded with political control and given the responsibility to fix their own mess is one of the travesties of the scandal that is the current journalistic abandonment of any pretense of standards or integrity. That the Bumbling Biden could utter the most outrageous and complete fabrication of the history of Hezbollah in Lebanon and our involvement there along with the utter fantasy of his proposed intervention, and not be held to account by a press more interested in investigating 25 year old traffic tickets by Governor Palin’s relatives and whether Joe has a current plumber’s license, has to rank as one of the most despicable failures of modern and corrupt journalism.

The economic measures being proposed by those who have brought you this looming recession will repeat the governmental economic idiocy that ushered in the Great Depression.

Here in Colorado the Democrat candidate for the Senate is one of those responsible for restricting energy development resulting in high gas prices and utility bills, based in part by the fraud of man-made global warming and extreme environmental over-regulation. His possible election will not only reward his own complicity in our economic problems but help hand a filibuster proof Senate majority to this radical and irresponsible Socialist Triumvirate.

Rarely has so much been at stake. On positions of the economy, conduct of the war, worldwide anti-terrorist operations, opposition to the state sponsors of international terrorism, energy development, phony climate control, misguided tax policies and most of all, a culture of death which will include taxpayer funded abortions; this Radical Triumvirate is far outside of the political mainstream.

Do not reward this Audacity of Mendacity with political victory and the near dictatorial control over our economy by economic illiterates. Here in Colorado, vote to elect Doug Lamborn, Scott Starin, Wayne Wolf, Marilyn Musgrave, Mike Coffman, George Lilly and John Lerew to their Congressional seats; Bob Schaffer to the US Senate; Sarah Palin for Vice President and that other guy running with her for President.

Pico, of Colorado Springs, is a retired navy commander, naval Flight officer and economist.

Obama - What could possibly go wrong?

2008-08-31T22:39:00.000-06:00

From the EPC Democrat Party Website:

2008-08-17T01:08:00.004-06:00

From the EPC Democrat Party Website:
(And what it really means in plain English, the official Language de Colorado.)FOR NOW

So I was trying a new Google feature I have been selected to beta test, and put in Local+Organizations+wishful exaggerations of the truth, and up pops the El Paso County Democrat's website. Their actual stated beliefs are in bold. Fortunately I was able to get a plain English translation of their stated beliefs (shown below.)
ENJOY- NEWSMAN

As Democrats We Believe:
In Defending all of the human rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Except for free association, freedom to keep what you earn, freedom of speech for conservatives on college campuses, freedom of the US Marines to recruit in Berkley, and the right to keep and bear arms.
A clear separation of Church and State. Except that we must ignore that separation is nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution, and that the phrase was expressed in a private letter by Thomas Jefferson (who was in France at the time and had no part in the constitution) to a Baptist convention. But it advances our religion of global climate change & anti capitalism (except for our favorite for profit abortion clinics.) So all hail and praise, separation from god is now our God.

Swift and appropriate punishment for criminal behavior. Except when the "criminal behavior" is unlawfully crossing our border, trespassing and property damage by liberal protesters, or sexual crimes against children in Vermont.

Freedom from undue government interference in our private lives and personal decisions. Except if you want to home school your kids in California.

Fiscal responsibility in government. The responsibility we feel to ensure you pay your fair and ever growing share for our ever growing government's fiscal needs.

Equal opportunity for all citizens. And equal preferences for all those we can divide into diverse and separate sub groups who need our protection and assistance cause they just can't make it if all things were really equal.

A quality education that gives all individuals the opportunity to reach their potential*. *For those that can afford a private school like Chelsea Clinton had, or live in areas with a Conservative school board, and Union government schools with little accountability or hope of improvement for those unlucky enough to live where the Education Union is strong. But hey, we need their union money and organization skills.

A quality environment in which to raise our children. With freedom for the transgendered to use their restrooms, to parade down main street, and adopt them when their backwards conservative parents are finally jailed for their homophobic thoughts.

The value of diversity within the community. With the worthwhile goal of total diversity of each and every human family, diversity of language until we all speak and understand a different diverse one, and diversity for all thoughts and ideas, except conservative ideas, traditions, morals and morays which must be eliminated.

Rewarding honest, hard work with a living wage and fair taxation. Well history proves were lying here, but just smile and give us a pass.

Community support for strong families. Except if they're headed by an evil white male who regularly listens to Rush Limbaugh.

Security in our homes, our communities and our nation. Except we opposed the "make my day" law to allow true personal security. On national security, we elected representatives that tried to cut and run, but they couldn't get it passed. Elect more Democrats and we will promise a foreign policy triumph like Jimmy Carter gave us in Iran. (He got a Nobel Peace prize for the lasting peace he brought to the middle east too.)

A nation that will serve as a model of economic and social justice to the rest of the world. And be a model like Fidel Castro's Cuba, whom we Love and Praise.

And remember to vote Democrat in the Fall, Our Invincible team is recommended by more ruthless dictators than any other party.

(WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Add another name to the list of political observers who think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unbeatable: Cuban leader Fidel Castro.)

Danny Glover and Jane Fonda will be next months guest speakers.

This has been a test of Democrats ability to take humor as well as dish it out.
NEWSMAN

The Russian Incursion Continues

2008-08-16T10:44:00.002-06:00

Click on the map to enlarge the map image

A couple of days ago I received the email below from a trusted friend. He says that it is authentic and that is good enough for me. Forgive me for removing the names;

I’m sure you understand the reason.
Begin forwarded email.
Capt _____ provides input from someone inside Georgia. If he emailsit, it's reliable. FYI-----Original Message-----From: Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:42 PMTo:
Subject: FW: GeorgiaAdmiral, Sirs, Word from Inside Georgia. Sad news.v.r.CAPT Counter-Terrorism & Defense Operations-----Original Message-----From: Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:38 PMSubject: GeorgiaBy all accounts, the Georgian Coast Guard was essentially destroyedyesterday by Russian regular army troops in Poti. No people killed orinjured, as there was no resistance.

Three ships seized and destroyed.Buildings on the base damaged and/or destroyed, including the commandcenter. Other GCG vessels had left Poti before this and were not taken. Theradar station at Anaklia was destroyed. Not yet at Supsa, the Russians wereexpected to destroy that station as well.It has chilled me to hear of all of this, as so much of that infrastructurewas built or improved as a part of my w! ork these past years. It can berebuilt if the money is found but i t pains me nonetheless.

It is the destruction and looting in the villages near Abkhazia, and aroundSouth Ossetia that is so horrific. There is no foreign aid to help familiesrebuild their lives. The Georgia, Osset and Abkhaz youth who are a part ofit are thugs and criminals easily brought to the Russian fold in return forfree reign. There is no reasonable explanation on earth for what theRussians are now doing in Georgia. It does not equal the genocide of Darfur,but it is all here in my backyard.My family is terrified, and the patriotic rhetoric is maxed out in volume.Thankfully it appears that the Russians will not press on to Tbilisi.Amazingly we still have electricity and phone service. And water.Gracefully yesterday provided a moment of peaceful irony - at the Olympicsin Beijing Georgian athletes won 2 gold medals. The first was in judo. The second was in wrestling. The Georgian defeated - a Russian! And in Olympicappropriateness the two combatants threw their arms around each other inexhaustion and respect.

I think all of Georgia was standing for their anthemduring the medals ceremony .Best wishes,
End of forwarded email

As I pointed out in my last Political Discourse, Putin wants to put the old Soviet Union back together. It seems that Georgia’s crime was being friendly with the West and specifically their desire to join NATO. When the rebelling region of South Ossetia tried to break away and rejoin with Russia, Georgia went in for the purpose of putting down the rebellion. That was the excuse that Russia needed/wanted to attack Georgia.

North Ossetia has long been aligned with Russia. In the map insert above, North Ossetia is the area marked as Alania. While South Ossetia has strong ties to Russia, has long been considered a part of Georgia.

Russian forces have been in South Ossetia, theoretically as a peacekeeping force, but their wonton actions against the Georgians as noted in the above email goes beyond merely protecting allies and preventing further violence. Georgia has also had peacekeeping forces in the area.
As of this morning, 16 August 2008, the Russians and the Georgians have signed a cease-fire agreement, stipulating that Russian forces are to return to their previous positions in South Ossetia with the ability to patrol the Georgian border. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of the Russian military staff has stated that a return of Georgian forces to South Ossetia would not be acceptable.

To slightly shift gears, the Associated Press reported today that Poland and the United States have concluded an agreement to place anti-ballistic missiles in Poland. The negotiations have been going on for 18 months with the stated goal to place missiles in Poland to protect from any current or projected IRBM/ICBM capability within Iran or other potentially unfriendly Middle Eastern country. Russia believes that the anti-ballistic missiles are a direct slap in the fact to them and has threatened retaliation in the form of its own nuclear arsenal.
Two days ago, Russia also made the statement that Georgian borders are no longer sacred, the same with any rebellious region within any of the former Soviet states that ask for Russia’s assistance.

Given the bellicose stance Russia has taken in the recent past, it would be reasonable to expect all of the former Soviet states to be in danger of re-absorbs ion. Russia is already looking with laser focus on the Baltic States.

After my last posting, a number of commentators as well as several of my friends have commented on the similarity between the current Russian actions and the incursion of German troops into the Sudetenland on 01 October, 1938. This incursion was due to the appeasement mentality of the Europeans at that time. The current actions of the Russians and the world’s desire for peace today make it feel like it must have in the late ‘30s. How many more of the former Soviet satellite states are going to be given to Putin?

Since the pull-out of US forces from Viet Nam, and the Marines from Lebanon, the United States has come to be viewed as a country that does not go the extra mile to back its friends. I believe that it is time to reverse that trend and show the world that we do back our friends. In the past, the Russians have typically responded only to adversaries that come to them from a position of strength. Giving in to their bullying in Georgia and Poland removes any semblance of strength. If we do not stand up for our friends now we could see a resurgence of Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe and a renewal of the Cold War.

As always, I welcome your comments/discussion.

Daniel C. Lanotte

The Russian Bear out of Hibernation

2008-08-11T16:33:00.001-06:00

On June 12, 1987, President Reagan made the famous demand, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” in a speech to the people of West Berlin. It was also heard on the East side of the wall. This was the prelude to the greatest peacetime implosion of a multilithic regime this world has ever seen. Today, 21 years later, we still laud Reagan for his courage to even make this challenge, after all of his advisors counseled against it.

In December of 1991, after the erosion of the Soviet world from the edges, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. A painful period of the Russian version of democratization began. The newly wealthy grew out of the corrupt officials that had run the country. Still, there was some hope that the new Russian Republic would work through these growing pains and come out the other side as a democracy, governed by the rule of law. The old hard-line Communists were suppressed and it looked as if Boris Yeltsin might just be able to pull it off, if his health held up. At least that is the short version.

Now fast forward to 2000. With the succession of Vladimir Putin to the presidency of Russia, another KGB professional was again in power. For the past eight years Putin has been consolidating and confirming his power.

In the run-up to the 2003 parliamentary elections, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the wealthiest of the new Russian billionaires, financed opposition parties running against Putin’s United Russia Party. For this indiscretion, the government charged Khodorkovsky with fraud and tax evasion. The sentence was for eight years. Under the Russian legal system, he was eligible for release in 2008. Removing this source of financing, Putin’s ruling party easily won reelection. In early 2007 Khodorkovsky faced new charges of money laundering and embezzlement in preparation for the upcoming 2008 elections. Putin could not take a chance of losing his legislative mandate.

Putin and the ruling party have recently taken to flexing their collective muscles in the old ways. In August of last year, Putin announced the resumption of long-range bomber flights because of security concerns. This renewed assertiveness now can be viewed as the first overt step in a campaign to reestablish the regional power base that the Soviets had established after World War II.

In the past week, Georgia has sent troops into the break-away enclave of South Ossetia to discourage thoughts of independence. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, South Ossetia has claimed to be independent from Georgia. This urge for independence was further enhanced with the recent declaration of independence by Kosovo.

Russia has been claiming that they are just acting as peacekeepers. But Russia is goaded by NATO’s promise to admit Georgia. Last week, Russian forces rolled into the area in support of the separatists. Two days ago, 8 Aug, it was reported that Russian troops had moved into South Ossetia with 150 tanks plus assorted other vehicles. Today, it was reported that Russian and Georgian forces are engaged. There are also reports of the Russian Navy blockading Georgian ports.

With the aforementioned examples of Russian expansion of control, both internal and external, it could be argued that Russia under Vladimir Putin is attempting to rebuild, at least partially, the Soviet power bloc of the Cold War days. While the West has been watching developments related to Muslim Terrorism, Putin has been restoring the Russian military which had fallen into abject disrepair; this repair and modernization being paid for by proceeds gained from re-nationalized industries such as the petroleum industry.

This is a complicated world, made more so by the resurgence of Russia as a power with which to be reckoned. Only time will tell the lengths to which Putin will go to achieve the level of his desired power.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussions.

Daniel C. Lanotte

The Coalition for a Conservative Majority Responds

2008-08-06T21:06:00.000-06:00

Dear CCM Colorado Springs members,

Earlier today, you received an email from the former CCM-Co Springs chapter president announcing his resignation. In his letter, he makes very pointed accusations against myself, CCM’s founder Tom DeLay and CCM’s Colorado Chairman Bob Beauprez, and sends a considerable amount of misinformation to all of you as members as CCM members. For this, I am very disappointed.

To backtrack and re-trace the structure and intention of CCM; we are classified as a not-for-profit, 501c4 organization that does not support the election or defeat of any candidate for office. CCM’s mission is to recruit, organize and activate conservatives in specific policy areas so that we may have a voice in the public arena. We have many odds against us when looking at the funding and organization of Left wing groups, and the national media who too often ignore the values of conservatives. The last thing we need to do as committed conservatives is to point our action in our own direction.

Unfortunately, there has been an attempt to divide us as conservatives in what has become a bitter fight in Colorado’s 5th congressional district. At a time when Mark Udall is supporting an extreme liberal agenda in his race for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama is heading to Colorado to accept his party’s Presidential nomination and, just today, Governor Bill Ritter was extensively quoted in the Rocky Mountain News championing a ballot initiative that would raise taxes and the cost of gas prices on all Colorado residents, CCM’s action items should be to engage in the debate on these issues so that the public is aware of the liberal policy agenda being spewed out by these extremists. From a grassroots level, the CCM-CO Springs chapter has a unique opportunity to define the issues and provide the public with the correct information on each of these and many other items that the Left will attempt to distort.

It is regretful that the intense primary situation in the 5th Congressional District has spilled over with personal politics and emotions that are misdirected and not accurately communicated to you as CCM members. However intense the primary situation is, it should not take our eyes off the primary goal: to beat the liberals at their own game on their own turf by effectively organizing our activists and communicating conservative values in the public policy arena.
CCM CO Springs now has a unique opportunity to repair this fracture and build on a new foundation of agreed upon principles. With new leadership and a better sense of direction, I have no doubt in my mind that this chapter will only increase in activity, performance, and results. I encourage all of you to put this unfortunate, personal matter behind you and continue on the road of communicating our principles and making a difference in the public policy debate that surrounds the upcoming events and elections.

I believe we should have a CCM members-only meeting within the next week to discuss the internal organization of CCM-CO Springs and wanted to get some feedback from as many of you on this.

Thanks to all of you as committed conservatives, as I know in my heart we can do great things going forward with our organization.
If I have inadvertently missed any of the CCM-Springs members, you may forward this to them.
Sincerely,

Chris Perkins
Executive Director
Coalition for a Conservative Majority

1012 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Suite 300
Washington, DC 20003
202-543-3816
chris@ccmajority.org

Dan responds to Fisk's CCM resignation

2008-08-06T21:00:00.003-06:00

The CCM-CS has agreed to the tenants under which the national organization was established. It is good that Kyle is passionate about putting together a head-to-head discussion between candidates. One question I would pose is why it was only the 5th CD race. We have a number of contentious races here in El Paso County that would be eligible for such a forum. None of these have been recommended.

I also know that Kyle is a very strong Jeff Crank supporter and I applaud him for that loyalty. However, I feel that it was inappropriate to use the proposed tactic and forum to promote Mr. Crank. As we have seen in previous “candidate forums,” they served to provide a platform for two candidates to levy unanswered questions and accusations as well as promote falsehoods against the candidate who was not in attendance. As we all know, just the utterance of a statement in a political campaign is to imply accuracy.

As the chairman of the Planning Committee for the Falcon Republican Club, we discussed having a series of candidate forums for the 5th CD, State House 15, and the District Attorney. In each of these races at least one of the candidates made it known that, for whatever reason, they would not be able to accept such an invitation. The Falcon Republican Club has the same obligation as the CCM-CS in that we cannot endorse or imply endorsement of any candidate before the primary.

After the primary, we will endorse and work for the primary winner. Of course, the CCM-CS cannot endorse any candidate at any time. As stated above, providing a platform for one or two candidates to levy charges, lies, or accusations against a non-participating candidate would imply that the organization is proffering a negative endorsement on one candidate. For this reason, the Falcon Republican Club has rejected the idea of holding any candidate forums before the primary. We are still considering holding candidate forums before the general election between primary winners of both parties.

I support CCM National in their decision concerning the proposed candidate forum for the 5th CD. I also believe that it would be appropriate for CCM-CS to host candidate forums for all races between the party candidates leading up to the general election.

Daniel C. Lanotte

Partisan President Kyle Fisk resigns CCM

2008-08-05T13:39:00.002-06:00

Kyle Fisk, widely viewed by a growing group of CCM members as "In the Tank for Crank" to such a degree that he would jeopardize the CCM goal of building a conservative majority by scheduling a divisive debate not wanted or agreed to by all campaigns in a Republican primary just to advance his guy Jeff Crank "a never before elected challenger" to current incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn, got their proof of Kyles priorities today.

From: Kyle Fisk <kyle.fisk@gmail.com>Date: Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Subject: OPEN LETTER - Kyle Fisk CCM ResignationTo: Kyle Fisk <kyle.fisk@gmail.com>

Attached and copied below. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce, quote from, or forward along to interested parties the contents of this email.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CONSERVATIVES OF THE 5th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Re: Resignation of Kyle Fisk as President of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, Colorado Springs ChapterMonday, August 4, 2008 10:00 PMAt this evening's membership meeting I submitted my resignation as President of Coalition for a Conservative Majority-Colorado Springs effective immediately. I firmly believed that an organization of this type had tremendous possibility. Due to campaign finance laws, limited resources, and a focus on electing candidates, political parties can only do so much to advance the conservative debate.

Third-party groups like CCM have an invaluable role in bringing today's key issues to the forefront of the public discourse.However, I will not stand idly by as this organization engages in partisan and biased politics. It is the right of the electorate in our community to be fully aware of what happens behind closed doors during this primary election season. CCM-National vetoed our plans to hold a "Conversation with the Candidates" event at our August membership meeting. They canceled our event because not all three candidates would confirm their participation in the event. Initially claiming that a 501c4 could not host this type of event, they retracted this position when confronted with the facts concerning 501c4 activities in Colorado.The position of CCM-National in this case is unconscionable. They claim that having a public forum with candidates in this primary would constitute a perception of support for Jeff Crank and Bentley Rayburn, the challengers in this race. Their reasoning is that Doug Lamborn has publicly stated his unwillingness to debate and therefore any open forum is thereby biased against him in favor of his opponents. This logic is terribly flawed. Doug Lamborn does not have the right to dictate anything to CCM-Colorado Springs. It is Congressman Lamborn's prerogative not to attend our event. However, it was equally our prerogative to hold an event and I am extremely disappointed that we were forbidden to hold any townhall meeting.Chris Perkins, the Executive Director of CCM in Washington, DC, expressly forbade our group from moving forward with our plans. CCM-National decided instead to protect the incumbent in this race and deny the voters a chance to have their questions answered.

By adopting this position, CCM-National placed the local chapter of CCM in an untenable position. By forcing us to cancel our plans once invitations had been sent to all three campaigns, canceling the event actually creates the perception that we are supporting the incumbent and shielding him from an open conversation with the voters, as well as denying his opponents the freedom to speak, simply because he declines to join them.Our State Chairman Bob Beauprez, along with a majority of the CCM-Colorado Springs officers, supported the effort to host a neutral, fair, balanced townhall meeting of the candidates to discuss the issues. Among our officers we have supporters of all three Republican candidates in the 5th CD. Our membership is composed of supporters from all three campaigns. This was not to be a partisan event. We are a community group that wanted to talk about the issues.To be forbidden by the national staff to proceed with these plans is preposterous. We would not have been violating any laws, we would not in any way have been compromising our 501c4 tax status, and we would not have been playing favorites. These rather ludicrous claims disguise what I can only assume is the deeper motivation of Tom DeLay and CCM-National to protect Doug Lamborn and deny his opponents the opportunity to be heard.CCM-Colorado Springs should be a place that welcomes open, respectful, and sincere dialogue about the issues. Under my administration, we did everything possible to accommodate Congressman Lamborn and his conditions for a public forum. In fact, we were prepared to cancel tonight's activities in lieu of a forum on Friday, August 8th, which Lamborn's campaign manager had requested. However, when pressed for a commitment, the Doug Lamborn campaign rapidly retreated and stated their intention not to attend any candidate townhall meting under any circumstance.Doug Lamborn has the right to remain silent, but his opponents should not be forced to live by that code.

Candidates who wish to speak at our events should be allowed to do so, regardless of whether the opponents accept our invitations to join them. Otherwise we renounce personal responsibility and freedom of opportunity, pillars without which our republic cannot stand.Tom DeLay and CCM-National is, in my opinion, protecting Doug Lamborn. CCM-Colorado Springs, a supposedly neutral third-party group, has crossed a very dangerous line. I can not remain part of an organization that elevates the preferences of any candidate or elected official above the good of our local chapter. Therefore, I must tender my resignation.I look forward to serving with conservative activists throughout our community on these critical issues through other venues and organizations.

Respectfully,Kyle FiskFormer President of CCM-Colorado Springs

RCF calls for party chairman's resignation

2008-07-27T06:28:00.001-06:00

A message to all El Paso County Republicans: Garcia must go.

July 26th 2008

The Republican Club of Falcon is shocked and dismayed that our Republican County Chairman, Greg Garcia has cast aside his pledged commitment to remain neutral during primary election contests and has thus violated our party by-laws.

Garcia's editorial criticizes Dan May who is engaged in a primary contest with John Newsome for District Attorney. It is unprecedented for a county party chairman to take sides during primary elections. He also ignores the false statements repeatedly told by Jeff Crank about Congressman Doug Lamborn and Bentley Rayburn and criticizes Lamborn and Rayburn for pointing out Cranks false statements.

Republicans should consider that Garcia's proclaimed code of fair campaigning was never approved by the membership, and is a smoke screen for political favoritism. Garcia is not acting objectively as he would have us believe. During the 2006 campaign, Garcia was a leader in the Jeff Crank campaign for Congress. His Executive Director, Nathan Fisk, who distributed the editorial, publicly supported Crank during the 2006 primary and refused to support the Republican nominee, Doug Lamborn, after the primary. Garcia and Fisk are biased and are using rose colored glasses when viewing Crank's false statements.

Garcia's behavior is dividing our county party and negatively impacting our ability to unify and help Bob Schaffer and John McCain win in November.

Therefore, the Republican Club of Falcon calls for the resignation of Greg Garcia for violating Bylaw 2.03 which absolutely forbids an officer of the county party from supporting or opposing any candidate in a contested primary.

Enter OSHA - By Dan Lanotte

2008-07-09T21:50:00.001-06:00

In this election year, there is a lot of discussion on the economy, the environment, the terrorist threat, the oil/price crisis, entitlements, and a myriad of other “hot buttons.” What I hear precious little about is what is really great about our country; what is really great about our people.

When we look back on the accomplishments that have come out of the USA we cannot help but marvel at the ingenuity and perseverance of American entrepreneurship. However, when we look back at the golden age of the Industrial Revolution, one thing that stands out as different from today is the lack of government regulation and taxation.

Back when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and the other industrial titans got started they were not hampered with such onerous regulations as Sarbanes Oxley. They were not taxed to the point that exploration and experimentation were activities that could only be undertaken after all of the government regulations and accounting had been satisfied. That was a day when the entrepreneur was able to let his ideas soar.

Today, the entrepreneur is buried under a mountain of regulation and is often taxed out of existence. If this intrepid entrepreneur is foolish enough to take on five or more employees, he comes under the laser beam of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Here is a true story. I know a man who is the safety engineer for a company that cleans meat packing plants. One of the safety requirements of the workers is that when they are working over a certain height off the floor they must wear a safety harness to arrest their fall in case of a mishap.

This requirement was/is well briefed and enforced for all employees. During one shift a few years ago, an employee neglected this rule and fell off a catwalk and tragically died. This happened several hundred miles from my friend’s office. My friend was not at the site of the mishap when it happened. Enter OSHA. The OSHA inspector wanted the US Attorney to prosecute my friend for murder because the worker neglected to fulfill his responsibility to protect his own life. Fortunately, the US Attorney did not deem it a credible case and did not prosecute.

This is only one example of the crushing bureaucracy that the federal government has placed on us. There are such examples as declaring a farmer’s field unworkable because a mouse lives there or a forest cannot be logged because an owl has taken up residence ten miles away. The worst case for the United States is banning oil exploitation in that massive wasteland called ANWR. If you have seen photos of this barren frozen desert you would be as aghast as I am.
Our current Democrat-controlled Congress is crushing the very livelihood out of our country.

Please do not mistake my ire as to be aimed only at Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans out there who are complicit in this crush. We are at a point where we are going to finish sliding all the way down that slippery slope into a totally socialistic society where the government controls every facet of our lives, or we are going to take it back and re-take our position as the world leader in innovation and entrepreneurship.

It is time we stop living with our hands out for our daily pittance and take responsibility for our own actions and living. It is time for the federal government to discontinue its evolvement into what Lenin made of Russia.

It is time to return to the ideals of conservation of the US Constitution.

As always, I welcome your questions/discussion.

Dan

There oughta be a Law - Yes on 46 !

2008-06-29T23:37:00.001-06:00

by: NEWSMAN

Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial
STATE RACISM DOESN'T WORK - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON THE ROPES

Remove all the political pettifoggery, obfuscation and claptrap, and one thing becomes clear: decisions based on race and gender are racist and sexist. Period.

That's why a recent poll regarding the November ballot issue that would end racial and gender preferences by the state indicates the measure will win by a landslide.

A Qunnipiac University/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal poll surveyed 1,300 likely Colorado voters and found that 65 percent support the proposed state constitutional amendment to end preferences. Only 15 percent plan to vote against it. For opponents to the measure, the odds are almost insurmountable.

The initiative will appear on the ballot as Amendment 46. If approved, the amendment would read: "The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public contracting, or public education."

The overwhelming support of the measure perplexes some academics and political pundits. Rather than accept the fact that Coloradans object to racism and sexism, some have decided that supporters of the measure are simply confused. They have argued that people who signed the petition, which contained a few simple words, were misled.

The Rocky Mountain News quoted Colorado State University political science professor John Straayer explaining that voters don't know a lot about the amendment, so they tend to "automatically say, 'Oh, you don't want to have preferences. Fair is fair, equal is equal' ... When people focus on it a little more, look at the ads, more people will become cognizant of why those preferences were put in in the first place."

In other words, they might come to a conclusion other than "fair is fair, equal is equal." They might come to a conclusion that "fair is fair," but sometimes an unfair policy unfairly benefits me. Or they might conclude that "equal is equal," and sometimes unequal benefits me.
The instinctive reaction - the one in which Coloradans are repulsed by the idea of race or gender-based preference by the state - is the moral and intelligent reaction.

Racism is the simple act of basing behaviors and words on race; sexism is the act of basing behaviors and words on sex. An enlightened society bases behaviors and words on more relevant considerations, such as intelligence, character, experience, education and achievement. Race and gender don't enter the equation.

When the state bases college admission - or hiring decisions, or anything else - on skin color and sex, the state engages in racism and sexism. It really is that simple.

When racism and sexism somehow become justified, as people rationalize them with circumstances and needs and the desire to counter historical bias, it doesn't change the basic fact that's apparent when people read the simple wording of the proposed amendment. Their reaction: racism and sexism are wrong.

Racial and ethnic minorities don't need favorable treatment, as if they're somehow less capable than others. Women don't need favorable treatment to compete with men. On merit alone they will reverse conventions and ignorant prejudicial practices of the past. Racism and sexism have always been wrong. They cannot be made right by counter efforts at racism and sexism on the part of the state.

Colorado voters are on the verge of institutionalizing genuine civil rights, with an amendment that forbids state officials from basing decisions on sex and race. They support it instinctively and overwhelmingly.

That's because racism and sexism have no place in this modern world. They're the remnants of a bygone era, when good ol' boy networks, cliques and conformity could survive in markets limited by primitive communication, low-end technology and barriers to entry that no longer exist
In today's highly technical, well-connected, decentralized and intelligent markets, only merit, innovation, intellect and prosperity compete.

Today, nobody can afford decisions based on gender or race. That's why Coloradans instinctively cringe at the thought of state decisions based on gender and race - decisions that are sexist and racist.

There oughta be a law, and it looks like there will be one soon.

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/ropes_37745___article.html/state_action.html

Crank-Rayburn Poll = Lamborn up by 20+ %

2008-06-24T23:21:00.001-06:00

by: NEWSMAN

Controversial Crank and Rayburn Poll gives Lamborn a 20 point lead over his opponents.

According to the June 20 issue of the Colorado Statesman, Leslie Jorgensen reports that the controversial Crank/Rayburn poll of 525 republican voters found that incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn has a 20 point lead over his closest opponent.

"The poll consisted of more than 30 questions. In the first round, before respondents heard information about the candidates, 51 percent of the voters said they intended to vote for Lamborn. Of the remaining 49 percent, 27 percent favored Crank, 13 percent favored Rayburn, and 9 percent remained undecided."

"On positive name recognition, Lamborn received a 68 percent, Crank 46 percent, and Rayburn 33 percent. The poll revealed that Rayburn and Crank have to overcome a lack of name recognition. About 28 percent of the polled respondents said they did not recognize Crank's name; 37 percent had never heard of Rayburn."

Even after some information of questionable objectivity was provided about franked mail and earmarks, Lamborn was still 20 points in the lead.

"When respondents were asked again whom they would vote for, Lamborn's support slipped to 46 percent. Of the remaining 54 percent, 26 percent said they would vote for Crank, 15 percent for Rayburn and 13 percent remained undecided."

Promoting play could stop liberals moving here

2008-06-20T18:21:00.003-06:00

On June 17 The Gazette had an editorial criticizing the anti-Colorado Springs play, "This Beautiful City," in which the Springs is depicted as populated by religious zealots who want to conquer the world.

This is an unbelievable opportunity for the city.

Think of the liberals we can stop from moving here.

We should find some way to subsidize this play.

We should have a Web site with a cowboy chewing on a cigar and packing a .45 on his hip.

The caption could say: Welcome to Colorado Springs; we hang hoss thieves. Onward Christian soldiers.

Dennis Mercadal, Colorado Springs

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/don_37495___article.html/letters_families.html

Modern-day Paul Revere sounds alarm on spending

2008-06-16T02:11:00.001-06:00

OPINION

JOHN STOSSEL Syndicated columnist

Congress is spending us into a hole. We hear about the cost of earmarks and the Iraq war. But what about “entitlements”? That’s the government’s ironic term for programs that transfer money from people who earned it to people who didn’t.

Entitlement? How can you be entitled to someone else’s money?

To finance “entitlement” programs, the government threatens force against the taxpayers who provide the money.
Why are people who favor compulsion called humanitarians, while those who favor freedom are stigmatized as greedy? But I digress.

Today’s big problem with entitlements is that their growth will soon eat everything in the federal budget. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the growth of government spending and deficits for Rep. Paul Ryan, R.-Wis., ranking member of the Budget Committee. The report estimated that spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which in 2007 represented about 8 percent of GDP, would balloon to 14.5 percent in 2030 and 25.7 percent in 2082. There is no way that can fly.

If you add in all other spending, including interest on the debt, federal spending under the CBO’s scenario would eat up an astounding 75.4 percent of GDP in 2084. If taxes don’t keep pace, the CBO says the “additional spending will eventually cause future budget deficits to become unsustainable . . . .” And if taxes were to keep pace? The CBO says, “[T]ax rates would have to more than double.” One alternative to raising taxes would be to cut other spending. But at current spendinggrowth rates for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all other spending would have to be reduced to zero in 2045. How likely is that?

Ryan is understandably alarmed. In the May 21 Wall Street Journal, he wrote about a bill he’s proposing that would: give individuals tax credits with which to buy their own health insurance in a competitive national marketplace, let the states have flexibility in running Medicaid, give workers under 55 money to buy insurance rather than rely on Medicare when they retire, permit younger workers to invest up to a third of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, increase the retirement age and temper the growth in Social Security benefits.

I don’t know if that would be enough. What we really need is a top-to-bottom freeing of the economy, including the health care industry, and massive cuts in government both spending and taxes. This would leave us wealthy enough to take care of ourselves, with private charity assisting those who can’t manage. But Ryan’s heart is in the right place. At least he’s trying to get the public and his colleagues to focus on what’s important. He told me he hopes to play the role of “Paul Revere, sounding the alarm about the government’s unsustainable fiscal path.” Sadly, his proposal has been largely ignored.

The Wall Street Journal didn’t even publish any letters about it. At least Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle said, “I am encouraged by Congressman Ryan’s leadership in his efforts to address this serious problem that continues to swallow the budget and swamp our economy.” And the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget agreed: “It shows tremendous courage and leadership on Congressman Ryan’s part that he is willing to lay out a comprehensive and detailed plan.”

Pleasantly surprising is the lefty home-state Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s reaction, praising Ryan for “putting a plan forward” while the presidential candidates are “skirting the issue.” But for the most part, Ryan’s plan is being ignored. That’s too bad, because this budget problem is the big one.

The longer we wait to address it, the uglier it gets.

Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News’ “20/20” and the author of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know is Wrong.”

Why I must vote for John McCain

2008-06-12T01:23:00.001-06:00

I want to start this off from the beginning. I had never planned on voting for John McCain.

Matter of fact I told many friends that if John McCain won the nomination I would switch to the Independent party. Now that was quite shock for my friends considering one of my favorite sayings is, "An Independent is someone who can't make a decision."I started with supporting Mike Huckabee. Later I realized that his views and mine weren't quite inline, but I was willing to overlook it since there was no other candidate that came as close. I ended my Primary journey supporting Alan Keyes. To this day I believe he is the best candidate for America.

Then the bad news struck. John McCain won the Primary. I was extremely disappointed and decided I was going to vote for Alan Keyes anyway. However, I decided I would pull a Benjamin Franklin and get a piece of paper and write down the pros and cons for voting for John McCain.

The cons filled up fast, but there was one glaring pro that caught my eye and made me think. Supreme Court Judges!Most likely, over the next four years, a handful of liberal judges will be retiring. Who will take their place?

Well, if Obama gets elected I have a pretty good idea, liberal judges. If John McCain wins, at least there is would be a chance for more constructionist judges.Most people today think that the war on terror is the main issue. Perhaps that issue is neck-and-neck with the economy. Some people believe that gay marriage is at the top of the list.

I believe that Supreme Court Judges are the main issue. Why? Since the start of our country, but even more in the last 40 years, Supreme Court Judges have been writing law with their decisions. Over the next four years (and most likely even longer) a judge will determine whether we even fight the war on terror, how we will fight the war on terror and to some degree when we fight.

A judge will determine whether the states are separate governments or simply a map point made available so google maps will work easier. Now don't get me wrong, I do not think judges should have that kind of power, but since the American people have allowed them to have it, I want judges who will use that power sparingly.

For those who plan on sitting out this election out or who just can't seem to bring themselves to vote for McCain I completely understand, but I would like to plea with you to think about this.

Can we really afford 30 more years of liberal Supreme Court Judges?

-- Shawn Mullen http://www.shawnmullen.com

Rayburn no guarantee of more local military jobs

2008-06-12T01:18:00.000-06:00

So, Mayor Lionel Rivera has endorsed Bentley Rayburn for the 5th Congressional District in opposition to our incumbent Republican, Doug Lamborn ("Rivera endorses Rayburn for House," Metro, June 5). He cites Rayburn's status as a retired military officer as his reason. Theoretically, Rayburn will be able to convince the military to move more operations here and thus create more civilian military contractor business and more jobs and commerce in Colorado Springs. I disagree with the mayor.

It is not the constitutional responsibility of a congressman to develop jobs and commerce for a city. That is the duty of the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic Development Corp. I have heard this argument about retired military folks serving in public office as a draw for military business for more than 20 years here in Colorado Springs.

This is more myth than reality. They have no more clout and influence than anyone else, particularly as a freshman congressman. Lamborn already serves on the Armed Forces Committee and there is no guarantee a new freshman would be appointed to that committee, even if he is a retired officer. Lastly, according to reports, the military comprises about a third of our local economy. I don't think it's prudent to try to boost that to 40 percent or 50 percent. What the government gives, the government can take away.

That is a very precarious marriage. I would rather see our chamber and EDC work on developing other types of commerce such as light manufacturing (appliances, furniture, etc.) rather than putting all of our eggs in the military basket. We have a solid conservative congressman in Lamborn.

Let's send him back to Washington.

Kyle C. Akers, Colorado Springs
Posted at Gazette.com

Lamborn is trying to Lower the Price of your Gas

2008-06-11T13:24:00.002-06:00

I am tired of hearing from CRANKy Republicans, that Congressman Lamborn is doing nothing in Washington. One asked me a few days ago, "So what is Lamborn doing about the high price of gas?"

I was not sure that Congress was even attempting to do anything constructive, except oppose the anti-energy agenda of Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat's.
But I was wrong. Republicans are and have been trying to improve the domestic energy picture for some time.

I am sharing an update about what Congressman Lamborn is doing to help lower the price of gas. As you know, the high cost of gas, diesel, and energy in general is causing huge problems for American families.

Congressman Lamborn supports tapping into the vast supply of domestic energy resources we have in the United States. If we increase our own production, we can drive prices down.
In addition to his work on the Natural Resource Committee, below is a brief description of some the bills he is co-sponsoring. This is not an exhaustive list, but some good examples of how to help lower the price of gas.

H.R. 3089, No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007
Reduces the price of gasoline by opening new American oil refineries; investing in diverse energy sources such as wind, nuclear, and clean coal-to-liquid technology; and making available more homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic Energy Slope and America's Deep-Sea Energy Reserves.

H.R. 2279, Expand American Refining Capacity at Closed Military Bases
Reduces the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries.

H.R. 5656, To Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels
Reduces the price of gasoline by allowing the federal government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology.

H.R. 2208, Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act
Reduces the price of gasoline by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuel.

H.R. 2493, Fuel Mandate Reduction Act of 2007
Reduces the price of gasoline by removing fuel blend requirements and onerous government mandates if they contribute to unaffordable gas prices.

H.R. 6107, American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act
Reduces the price of gasoline by opening the Arctic Energy Slope to environmentally sensitive American energy exploration. Exploration would be limited to 0.01% of the Refuge, and revenue received from the new leases would be invested in a long-term alternative energy trust fund.

H.R. 6108, Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2008
Reduces the price of gasoline by enabling the United States to responsibly explore its own deep ocean to produce American energy. The bill would grant coastal states the authority to keep exploration 100 miles from their coastlines and it would also allow states to share in the revenues received.

NEWSMAN

Defend Doug

2008-06-09T00:42:00.001-06:00

by Dave Crater

June 8th, 2008
"If You Care About Taxes, Spending, and Earmarks, Defend Doug"by Dave Crater
It's Republican primary time, when ambitions, conservative promises, and Reagan invocations are in full flower. And the only way to tell real conservative defenders from perennial conservative pretenders is to examine their records..

Let's start with the record of incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado's Fifth Congressional District. Mr. Lamborn is finishing his first term in Congress and in that time, according to Congressional Quarterly, he voted against the Democrat agenda in Congress more than any other Republican ("CQPolitics.com Candidate Watch," Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 10, 2007). This includes social, economic, and fiscal votes.

Mr. Lamborn was also one of five members of Congress – that's five out of 535, and only three of the 435 members of the U.S. House – that the nation's leading fiscal conservative group, Club for Growth, has given a rating of 100% for 2007. Club for Growth tracked votes on a range of tax, fiscal, and regulatory issues in the last Congress and determined that Mr. Lamborn voted correctly every time. See the entire 2007 Club for Growth scorecard here:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/05/the_2007_congressional_scoreca.php

This is no new pattern. Over the twelve years he was a member of the Colorado legis
lature, Mr. Lamborn consistently led both the Colorado House and the Colorado Senate with his record of opposition to big-government spending, pork projects (these days fashionably referred to as "earmarks"), and tax increases.

With this kind of record, it is striking that Mr. Lamborn has a Republican primary opponent, Jeff Crank, attempting to criticize him on his fiscal record. It is well-known that, in justifying his own candidacy against a man who for a decade and a half has consistently defended all the things Mr. Crank claims to believe in, Mr. Crank has settled on one fundamental, earth-moving issue that gets the blood boiling of every principled Republican everywhere: franking expenditures.
That's right, franking expenditures.

The franking privilege dates to the founding of the United States and covers expenses members of Congress incur in sending mail to their constituents. The purpose is obvious: communication between congresspeople and their constituents is a good thing. Clearly, this privilege like any legitimate privilege can be abused, so there are processes in place in Congress by which all franked mailings must be approved. Mr. Lamborn is a first-term congressman whose constituents need to get to know him and what he is doing on their behalf – again, this is not empty campaign-speak, but a rationale endorsed by the framers of American government – and all his mailings have been approved by congressional leadership. All such mail, moreover, is paid for out of a congressman's official budget; what he does not spend on constituent communications he is fully authorized to spend on other things, and what he spends on constituent communications is not available for other things.

The use of this kind of issue against someone with the fiscal record of Mr. Lamborn says more about Mr. Crank than it does about the Congressman: from the standpoint of conservative policy, there simply is nothing more substantial on which Mr. Lamborn can be criticized.
Mr. Crank raised the franking issue most recently in a May 30 opinion column in the Colorado Springs Gazette, where he also offered glowing promises to, if elected, "rock the boat" of the Washington establishment, eliminate earmarks, eliminate the federal departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy, and cut federal spending by 20%.

Aside from the fact that even Ronald Reagan was not able to accomplish such heroic feats, if Mr. Crank were sincere in these convictions, he would be supporting Mr. Lamborn for Congress rather than running against him.

No Republican in the last two years, and very few Republicans in Colorado in the last half century, have more consistently, philosophically, and courageously opposed Washington (and Denver) excesses than has Doug Lamborn. It is the lack of people in Washington like Mr. Lamborn, and the interest of too many self-proclaimed conservatives in running against them, that is at the heart of the very Washington excess Mr. Crank now decries. It is also at the heart of the national Republican malaise that is quickly heading the GOP toward an electoral cataclysm in November.

Mr. Crank waxes poetic against earmarks. Again, if this conviction were superior to his personal ambition, Mr. Crank would be supporting Mr. Lamborn. Here are all Mr. Lamborn's funding requests for fiscal year 2009, a list the Lamborn office has made public. All directly relate to defense spending, a core purpose of government, all Mr. Lamborn has offset in the budget by equivalent cuts in other programs so that there is no net increase in the federal budget, and all ironically recall Mr. Crank's criticism of Mr. Lamborn during the 2006 campaign for allegedly not being as strong as Mr. Crank on defense:

Land Acquisition for Peterson Air Force BaseMissile Defense Integration and Operations CenterACES 5 Ejection SeatExpeditionary Alternative Power GeneratorRadiation-Hardened Memory TechnologyDigital Engine TechnologyMilitary Information Management SoftwareSpace and Electronic Warfare Analysis ToolsHigh Altitude, Long Endurance Communications and Surveillance SystemImproved Ground Access to Peterson AFBImprovements to Ft. Carson Gates 5 & 6

With requests like these, and with Mr. Lamborn now occupying a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, it is no wonder the defense criticisms have given way in Mr. Crank's rhetoric to complaints about franking. As with his fiscal record, Mr. Lamborn's history at the state level on issues of national security and defense was as impeccable as his federal record has now become.
As a side note, if Mr. Crank should criticize Mr. Lamborn for the above funding requests and call them "earmarks" as if they were pet pork projects, Mr. Crank should explain why as a lobbyist on behalf of a defense company in 2005 he requested, according to public lobbying records, "increased spending for the HH-6OL program" in defense authorization bills. The name of Mr. Crank's lobbying company was Rocky Mountain Government Relations, and the HH-6OL is the Blackhawk medical evacuation helicopter now in use in the Army and National Guard. Earmark, or legitimate modernization of the armed forces that defend us and that are such central issues in the Fifth Congressional District?

In addition to franking, Mr. Crank can regularly be heard calling for better "leadership" in Washington, presumably implying that Mr. Lamborn's leadership is somehow defective. For starters, here is a short summary of Mr. Lamborn's legislative resume, a kind of resume of which Mr. Crank has not the beginning: Colorado House of Representatives, 1995; House Republican Whip, 1997; Colorado Senate, 1998; Senate President Pro-Tem, 1999; U.S. Congress, 2006; U.S. House Armed Services Committee, 2007. Mr. Lamborn is also a member of two other U.S. House committees.

Moreover, here is a quotation from a letter written to Mr. Lamborn last week by the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Crank's former employer, concerning Mr. Lamborn's funding requests. The letter is dated May 28, 2008 and is signed by the Chamber's CEO.
"Your policy of only making requests that promote our nation's defense, as well as providing full disclosure on these projects reflects not only their legitimacy, but also their important role in improving our nation's defenses…It is with great pleasure that we offer our support, on behalf of the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, for not only the appropriations you've requested, but also the manner in which you have done so. In a time where real transparency is lacking in Washington, your actions provide a refreshing change of pace."
Sound suspiciously like leadership?

It should be noted clearly what many noted during the 2006 primary contest between Mr. Lamborn and Mr. Crank. Nobody doubts that Mr. Crank maintains a coherent conservative philosophy of government and a genuine desire to serve his country. Given Mr. Lamborn's stellar record at both the state and federal levels, what is in doubt is Mr. Crank's ability to subordinate his ambition to his desire to see the things he believes implemented in government. There simply is no improvement he could possibly make to the record of Mr. Lamborn, and plenty of ways he would not likely match Mr. Lamborn; indeed, at least according to the Club for Growth, there are only a handful even among current members of Congress who are in Mr. Lamborn's league.

There is only one wise route for Fifth Congressional District Republicans on the ground to follow this August: ignore empty criticisms and empty promises, and say a prayer of thanks that in this age of messianic Democrats and the empty-headed crowds who love them, Colorado and Colorado Springs have a congressman with the kind of real wisdom, real mettle, and real leadership that will far outlast the latest political fad and the latest self-promoting Republican challenger.

Dave Crater

Doug Lamborn says NO to secret Earmarks

2008-06-08T02:29:00.002-06:00

Washington’s wasteful spending problem needs to be corrected. I am proud of the high marks I’ve received from the National Taxpayers Union and Club for Growth on my Congressional record of cutting waste and defending taxpayers. Unlike the traditional understanding of “earmarks,” my funding requests are offset by cutting poor performing and other programs. By doing this, the overall spending in the budget does not increase.

My defense-related transportation requests improve access for Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson. I support funding offsets for these requests as well. These requests are for legitimate national purposes and not for “pork projects” such as the Woodstock museum ($1,000,000). Instead, my priorities for project funding promote the defense needs of Colorado’s military assets and our national security. Moreover, the Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce supports these funding requests.

In the interest of transparency, I am sharing with you the complete list of funding requests I have made for Fiscal Year 2009.

You will find the amount, request details, and local support behind each request. I have taken a similar approach in the legislative process by making these funding requests subject to debate and amendment. Now, as you take a moment to review the details of my funding requests, I am confident you will agree that these projects protect our men and women in uniform and strengthen our national defense.23-Acre Land Acquisition for Peterson AFB - Amount Requested: $4.9M Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Prevents encroachment and allows future mission expansion by allowing the Department of the Air Force to acquire from a willing seller a 23 acre parcel in the State of Colorado To Learn More, Click Here

Missile Defense Integration and Operations Center - Amount Requested: $10M Schriever AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Provides funding for the Missile Defense Agency’s modeling and simulation center for ballistic missile defense applications • MDIOC, located at Schriever AFB, Colorado, is the proving ground for current and future missile defense programs and bridges the gap between developmental systems and the operational community To Learn More, Click Here

ACES 5 Ejection Seat - Amount Requested: $12M Colorado Springs, CO • Funds development and testing of the ACES 5 ejection seat to enable insertion into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the protection of our pilots in emergencies • Ensures preservation of the domestic manufacturing capability to produce vital life-saving ejection seat systems To Learn More, Click Here

Expeditionary 200 kW+ Alternative Power Generator -Phase 1 - Amount Requested: $6MPeterson AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Demonstrates and qualifies in a cold climate an innovative, energy efficient, alternative power technology for an energy intense Air Force installation• Utilizing tactical or readily available fuel for a next generation power generator capable of providing power within various settingsTo Learn More, Click Here

Radiation Hardened Non-Volatile Memory Technology - Amount Requested: $6.25M Colorado Springs, CO • Improves satellite payload operations by developing advanced memory components and subsystem capabilities, hardening them for protection in hostile settings.• Enhances satellite data storage capabilities to fit continually expanding future requirements To Learn More, Click Here

Digital Engine/Hydraulic Valve Actuation Technology - Amount Requested: $3.5M Woodland Park, CO • Develops technology to increase truck engine fuel efficiency up 50% for existing multi-fuel (JP8, biodiesel, E85, DME, gasoline, diesel) engines, and cleaner emissionsTo Learn More, Click Here

Webster Agent Case Expert - Amount Requested: $6.5M Colorado Springs, CO • Improves software designed to gather, assess, and manage military information operations from specified databases and open source material To Learn More, Click Here

Deployable Space and Electronic Warfare Analysis Tools - Amount Requested: $4M Colorado Springs, CO • Creates a common operation environment for Army support teams by incorporating space object data, improving navigation accuracy prediction, and integrating electronic warfare analysis • Provides mission planners with a near real-time assessment platform to support operation centers worldwide To Learn More, Click Here

High Altitude Long Endurance Development Program - Amount Requested: $5.5M Colorado Springs, CO • Corrects force capability gaps by providing the High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) stratospheric operating regime with “Space-like” communications and surveillance for battlefield situational awareness and over-the horizon communication To Learn More, Click Here

Full Access to Peterson AFB from Powers Boulevard - Amount Requested: $4M Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs, CO • Addresses mobility and future congestion at the Powers Boulevard intersection by providing an interchange To Learn More, Click Here

Improvements at Fort Carson Gates 5 & 6 - Amount Requested: $687,000 Fort Carson, CO • Accelerates intersection improvements at Fort Carson Gates 5 and 6 and safety improvements along SH 115 located between these gates To Learn More, Click Here

Sincerely,Congressman Doug Lamborn

Contact Congressman Doug Lamborn
WASHINGTON OFFICE 437 Cannon HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4422 Fax: (202) 226-2638

DISTRICT OFFICE 3730 Sinton Road, Suite 150 Colorado Springs, CO 80907 Phone: (719) 520-0055 Fax: (719) 52

We need more Lamborns & Schaffers

2008-06-02T21:23:00.003-06:00

by Dave CraterJune 2nd, 2008

The GOP picture in Colorado’s 5th congressional district is a picture of soulless politics and in microcosm of a national GOP headed for a November electoral disaster.

Editor: So warns Dave Crater, Air Force veteran, CU law student, and founder of the Wilberforce Center for Colorado Statesmanship. Here’s the article developing his logic for that somber verdict:

Loser GOP is Short on Doug Lamborns

“ ‘Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth…’ Just what does that mean? Not simply that they introduced something onto this continent. If so, where was it before they brought it in? And how could it be called a new nation if merely transferred? No, ‘bring forth’ cannot mean anything like ‘introduce from abroad.’ Lincoln is talking about generation on the spot.

The nation is rightly called new because it is brought forth maieutically, by midwifery; it is not only new, but newborn. The suggested image is, throughout, of a hieros gamos, a marriage of male heaven (‘our fathers’) and female earth (‘this continent’). And it is a miraculous conception, a virgin birth. The nation is conceived by a mental act, in the spirit of liberty, and dedicated (as Jesus was in the temple) to a proposition. The proposition to which it is dedicated forms the bridge back from Lincoln to Jefferson, from the Address to the Declaration…” — Garry Wills, Inventing America (Doubleday, 1978)

This is unfashionable language. So earthy; so full of male, female, procreation, and midwifery; all a very messy and laborious and old-fashioned business.

It is not even fashionable among many who believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and the hieros gamos that produced it. A growing number of such, at least among educated elites, get nervous any time biblical language is used to describe the American founding or the continuing presence and spiritual power of American influence in the world. “Politicizing the gospel,” the accusation goes, or as the misguided authors of the recently published Evangelical Manifesto put it (www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com), the gospel should not be “confused with or reduced to political categories such as ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’”

Translation: we want Christian engagement with culture and politics, but we are tired of evangelicals being so widely identified as political conservatives. This compromises the gospel. We want civility. We want political choices to be more separate from theological choices so that more political liberals feel more comfortable being around us.

We want a definition of “Evangelical,” which should be spelled with a capital “E” like every other religious option is, that is politically bigger-tent. We want to be more inclusive. We are tired of controversy.

Nice stuff, not unlike the “reach across the aisle” language and strategy on which GOP presidential candidate John McCain has built a lucrative national career. Who doesn’t want unity? Who doesn’t want the two sides of the aisle to come together once and for all? Who doesn’t want to be credited with having helped make the group hug happen? Why trouble ourselves with the laborious midwifery of an unfashionably conservative political heritage when an easier, more comfortable route is, at this hour as at every hour, so readily crafted and so ripe for the taking?

If Christ had followed this sure-winner public relations strategy, he might not have gotten himself crucified.

I’m not the only one with a better idea. GOP candidate for U.S. Senate and all-around Republican good guy Bob Schaffer captured it nicely on Saturday in the best applause line of a highlight-laden speech to the Colorado GOP state assembly: “Now, if we’re going to compete successfully against Democrats, we need to have a little bit of introspection and look at our own party as well. We could sustain a little bit of reform within the Republican Party, too. I’ve always believed that principles matter most, and I believe that it’s important even to take on leaders in our own party who have a tendency to drift from those principles that have defined our country.”

Ouch. The normal Schaffer grace, but a shot between the eyes to Republican leaders, all the way up to President Bush, whom Schaffer went on to tell the delegates he had publicly opposed on legislative disasters like No Child Left Behind and McCain-Feingold, which (my comment here, not Schaffer’s) is now hurting McCain’s campaign as badly as it is hurting free speech across the fruited plain. Note this is not any vague Scott McClellan sellout to the left; it is principled criticism from the right.

Schaffer’s simple truth was red meat for a leadership-starved Republican grassroots. Other ringers from Schaffer included a more-sincere-than-usual-from-Republicans-these-days appeal to the “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” of the Declaration – which went nicely with Mrs. Schaffer and the five Schaffer children, three of whom are training to become military officers, standing next to him – as well as a refreshing acknowledgement of the Almighty as the source of all good political things. It was a reference, given it is a piece of political theology almost always heard from conservatives and not liberals and which is the foundation of conservative political philosophy, that might have been a bit too flag-wavey to keep the signers of the Evangelical Manifesto smiling.

Watch Schaffer’s entire speech here.

But this is prologue. I imagine Schaffer would agree that good speeches are nice in their place and discomfitingly rare in today’s soul-starved GOP, but the energy and heart of the Grand Old Party and the larger American conservative movement are forged and proved on the ground, when and where nobody’s watching and applauding, and when the principles we claim to espouse are given flesh and blood by backbone in the trenches.

The real question is not whether we can find someone with the combination of guts and talent to give the speech Schaffer gave. The question is whether and where we can find a few more with the spinal stiffness to argue and vote to implement these sentiments in public policy, to do so even when nobody’s applauding and flattering, and to offer no weak, self-doubting apologies or excuses in the process.

Tough stuff. Not nearly as nice as big-tent John McCain Evangelical Manifesto inclusiveness. But as one of the nation’s – indeed, the world’s – favorite evangelical preachers, one who didn’t sign the Evangelical Manifesto and probably wasn’t invited to, is fond of saying, “Hard preaching makes soft people.” Converse: soft preaching may make for good media, but it makes for exceedingly hard hearts. Both may win you an election and get you out of short-term controversy; both will, whether you are an individual or a political party, eventually cost you your soul and your long-term political influence.

Fortunately for restless Colorado conservatives everywhere who don’t just say they agree with Schaffer that principles matter most, but so believe in their heart of soft hearts, Schaffer is not alone in holding high and proud the banner of principled political conservatism. Amidst the back-stabbing, ambition-soaked, slander-drenched, platitude-heavy, hard-hearted Republican atmosphere in El Paso County is an honest and sincere man with real convictions who happens to be a U.S. Congressman.

Name, Douglas L. Lamborn. Born 1954, Leavenworth, Kansas. Schaffer-like, has both a wife and five children. Bachelor’s in Journalism, National Merit Scholar, Juris Doctor, University of Kansas. Colorado House of Representatives, 1995. House Republican Whip, 1997. Colorado Senate, 1998. President Pro-tem, 1999. Impeccable conservative voting record at the state level. U.S. Congress, 2006. House Armed Services Committee, 2007.

According to Congressional Quarterly, through the August 2007 recess, Mr. Lamborn actually did what every Republican candidate for office tells party regulars he/she will do if elected: he voted against the Democratic agenda in the U.S. House more than any other Republican (“CQPolitics.com Candidate Watch,” Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 10, 2007).

One of five members of Congress – that’s 5 out of 535 – to receive a 100% rating in 2008 from the Club for Growth, perhaps the nation’s leading free-market think tank and political advocacy group. “True Blue” rating from the Family Research Council for a 100% voting record on issues of social conservatism. That means a) men get to be completely and joyously satisfied with women as their only marital option, b) women not only get acknowledged as fully equal to this high calling but enjoy the same reciprocal satisfaction in their marital options, and c) cute babies get to be safe in the womb again.

In short, here’s a politico with soul and a soft heart. For his labors, he has two GOP primary challengers, both claiming to believe in all the same things Mr. Lamborn has now spent a decade and a half advancing in public policy via the messy and laborious midwifery always required so to advance. Their reasons for running? Lamborn spends too much money communicating by mail with his constituents. We therefore need to elect his opponents to “show real leadership” and “take our Colorado common sense values to Washington” and “reach across the aisle to get things done” and .

Other vague condemnations and abandonments of Lamborn, both explicit and surreptitious, have been common and ugly throughout the Fifth Congressional and Colorado GOP hierarchies. Lamborn’s resulting distrust of the local GOP structure led him to petition on to the August primary ballot instead of going through the normal caucus process.

Bob Schaffer experienced something of the same royal treatment in 2004, when he ran for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate against moderate beer magnate Pete Coors and was opposed by many of the courageous state Republican leaders who, with no alternative candidate and thus no reason this time to have the proverbial finger in the proverbial wind, are now supporting him.
Yet somehow, even according to Mr. Lamborn’s opponent, Lamborn leads his competitors by at least ten percentage points in current polling. Read more here.

Perhaps the grassroots is not as unhappy with Lamborn-style, Schaffer-style principled political conservatism as media pundits and GOP leaders and self-serving challengers would have us believe.

The GOP picture in Colorado’s Fifth Congressional District is a picture of soulless politics and in microcosm of a national GOP headed for a November electoral disaster: persecute and marginalize family-man conservative heroes and celebrate cocktail-party mediocrities. Downplay decades of proven commitment and up-play glowing promises and smooth talk. Talk at campaign stops about what a great conservative and loyal Republican and fan of Ronald Reagan you are; talk on the phone about how useless Doug Lamborns are and how we’ll never be a winner party again until we are rid of them.

The nation was born maieutically, by midwifery, by men like Bob Schaffer and Doug Lamborn. Men like their critics may have won a few short-term victories in government, but their brief time passed and they ended their average lives as outsiders. The Grand Old Party was similarly born in the crucible of antebellum anti-slavery politics, where Abe Lincoln got scalded just as viscerally and irrationally and faithlessly as genuine Lincoln-style conservatives are getting scalded in today’s version of the party Lincoln founded.

Let us not dissemble: the GOP, both nationally and in Colorado, is far enough along its leftward path that only a stark electoral drubbing will awaken the collective party senses and once again create the political and cultural atmosphere where a new Reagan can rise to prominence and conservatives can re-take the party hierarchy, where a party and a nation once again remember the virgin birth – both the one in Bethlehem and the one in Philadelphia – and where both pledge anew, for the defense of a great set of eternal propositions about God, man, and government, not only their words during election season, but their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

Dave Crater

The author can be reached at crater@wilberforcecenter.org

Report from the Republican State Convention

2008-06-02T20:47:00.001-06:00

by: NEWSMAN

(Finally, someone with a report from the convention - promoted by David/ Colorado Pols.com)

This years convention in Broomfield was a treat. It got off to a good start, and stayed on schedule most of the day, until, the end when we were a few minutes ahead of schedule.

The keynote speaker Mitt Romney, hammered home the differences and contrasts between Barack and John McCain. Barrack would sit down and hold talks with the worlds largest sponsors of terror, John McCain would sit down with Americas allies, the best chance for a safe and stable world is a strong United States.

Mitt got the longest loudest standing ovation of the day, just slightly more than Bob Schaffer, who gave a rousing flawless speech.

The more I see and hear Bob Schaffer, the more I like him. He will not be a Senator that can be criticized for supporting a war he or his family is not willing to fight. Three of Bob's five children have chosen to enter Military service in a time of war. All of Bob's adult children are currently officers-in-training. Two participate in ROTC while attending college and another daughter is attending the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

The best presentation of the day had to be the college Republicans, "ten reasons why Hillary supports the College Republicans". (Because they both know how it feels to support unpopular ideas in a hostile environment.)

There was one lone protester with an anti war sign, who was quietly and politely removed, and one guy in an uncle SAM costume who was ruled out of order, ranting about some issue in his home district who was not so gently removed.

The real surprise were the Ron Paulies. Boy are they passionate. Talked to several who were very friendly and polite. The loudest costumes, most tattoos and wildest colored hair award definitely goes to the "Paulies".

At one point a Ron Paul supporter asked the chair for a chance for a Ron Paul representative to speak. The chair, Dick Waddams, put it to a standing vote, and it was overwhelmingly defeated. They politely withdrew after getting their vote.

The feeling in the hall was positive, upbeat, and inspiring. No one downplayed the big job ahead, or what must be accomplished to take back the US House, Senate, and the State of Colorado.
But we know where we went wrong, and what we need to do to correct it.

Now it's time to go to work.

NEWSMAN

Cross Posted at: http://coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6293

When Democrats have a majority - Can higher taxes be far behind?

2008-06-02T20:34:00.005-06:00

by: NEWSMAN

A tax even some Republicans can support?

Porn Tax Considered As Solution To CA Budget Shortfall

Written by: Doug G. Ware

LOS ANGELES - California state lawmakers are considering an unusual idea to solve the state's huge budget shortfall: Tax pornography.

The idea was proposed by a state assemblyman, and would impose a 25 percent tax on the production and sales of pornographic videos -- the vast majority of which are made in southern California.

It is unknown, however, how seriously lawmakers will take the idea or how the porn business would deal with the new tax. It is likely, though, that porm-makers would simply pass the cost along to consumers by making pornographic materials more expensive.

However, many economists believe that pornography is an industry with inelastic demand -- meaning market conditions typically don't affect consumers' desire for the product. In other words, it is believed that most porn consumers would continue to buy regardless of how much it cost.

A potential economic downside to the tax proposal is that porn producers could leave California to manufacture and distribute videos in other states that don't impose the tax.

http://www.kutv.com/content/news/watercooler/story.aspx?content_id=7276089e-3b07-44e9-9ce4-2cd6e1c31b37

Cross posted at: http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851

Doug Lamborn - Plan for Lower Gas Prices and American Energy Independence

2008-06-02T20:28:00.001-06:00

by: NEWSMAN

( - promoted by Colorado Pols)

Lamborn Joins House GOP to Unveil Plan for Lower Gas Prices and American Energy Independence

Congressman Lamborn joined fellow Republicans in unveiling the Republican energy plan to lower gas prices and deliver real solutions to the energy crisis facing America
Following today's press conference on the steps of the United States Capitol, Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05) issued the following statement:

"The Republican plan to increase domestic energy production will reduce the price of gas at the pump. We cannot simply rely on foreign nations to supply our energy needs, and we cannot continue the current do-nothing Pelosi plan on gas prices. By tapping into the vast amount of energy resources available in the United States, in an environmentally responsible manner, we can eliminate the Pelosi Premium at the pump. The Republican plan promotes domestic production, clean, and reliable energy sources, and advocates for better energy efficiency through conservation tax incentives." -Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)

When Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, the regular grade gas price in Colorado was $2.17 a gallon, as recorded by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). At that time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised the American people a "commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices."

Today, according to the Daily Fuel Gauge Report published by AAA, Coloradans are currently paying an astounding $3.76 a gallon thanks to the Pelosi Premium of $1.59. Unfortunately, this promise has not been kept at the detrimental expense of the American people.

Additionally, according to the American Petroleum Institute (API), "the United States imports more than 65% of its petroleum needs," making it clear the United States is dependent on foreign oil. The EIA also states that gas pump prices are determined by the price of crude oil, refining and distribution costs, and taxes from the federal and state level. Crude oil accounts for 70% of the price, as indicated by API.

Opening energy options in the United States would cut down transportation, refining, and, most importantly, crude oil costs accrued with importing foreign oil. This plan not only increases our American-made oil supply but will take pressure off demand in order to cut gas prices.

http://lamborn.house.gov/News/...

Cross Posted at http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851

My Prediction - NO Debates for Lamborn

2008-06-02T20:13:00.001-06:00

I see nothing to be gained by indulging these repeat match candidates.

Their campaigns all agree there is no difference on the issues, so what is there to debate?

My advise to Congressman Lamborn would be to wait until after the primary, and debate the Democrat.

Now Crank can debate Rayburn, that would be great political theater.

So it will be NO debates in the Republican Primary for Congressman Lamborn - You heard it here first.

NEWSMAN
The Conservative Voice of CD-5.

Cross posted at http://coloradopols.com/userDiary.do?personId=6851