Principal of Jay Bennish’s Overland High School Secures National Post

by Ben DeGrow | 9:18 pm, March 10, 2009

An interesting tidbit from Cherry Creek Schools:

Jana Frieler, principal of Overland High School in the Cherry Creek School District since 2005, was voted president-elect of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) at the organization’s national conference in San Diego February 27, 2009.
Frieler will lead the 30,000- member organization in 2010-2011. Frieler has been [...]

The ‘Change’ of Obama’s Foreign Policy: Talk to Enemies; Insult Allies

by Julian Dunraven | 8:15 pm, March 10, 2009

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

Honorable friends:

I think it is fair to say that when the American people elected President Obama, part of the ‘change’ they sought was in our diplomatic approach. Even I, struggling to find something to be happy about in this last election, told myself that at least Mr. Obama is unlikely to embarrass himself diplomatically as George Bush was so fond of doing. Perhaps, I thought, we would no longer have to suffer through articles about our President trying to massage the shoulders of Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel. That may have been wishful thinking given the recent diplomatic gaffes coming out of the Obama administration.

Take Hillary Clinton’s recent gift to Russia, for instance: a symbolic reset button. It was meant to represent a departure from the Bush administration’s confrontational attitude and effectively begin a new and friendlier relationship with Russia. The button read “Reset,” in English, but in Russian it apparently read, “Overcharge,” much to the embarrassment of Mrs. Clinton. Although I must say, “Overcharge,” seems to be a more accurate representation of what the Obama administration is doing, it is an appalling display of ineptitude on the part of our diplomatic corps. Even if the State Department is, for some inexplicable reason, suffering a shortage of agents literate in Russian, one would think they would at least have the presence of mind to go out and look at a Russian video game console, find the reset button, and copy the word. I dare say one of our adolescent gamers could have done a better job of it. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton’s error was quite minor when compared to the miserable display put on by Mr. Obama himself in receiving Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain.

During the Clinton and Bush (I & II) administrations, a visit from our closest and strongest ally’s head of government was marked with a joint press conference, a reception at Camp David, and a formal dinner. Not so in the Obama administration, which made no arrangement for any of these things. Unfazed though, Mr. Brown pressed on and presented Mr. Obama with a pen holder made from the wood of the HMS Gannet, a ship used in fighting the slave trade. Its sister ship, HMS Resolute, provided the wood to make just two desks: one belongs to Queen Elizabeth II, the other sits in the Oval Office. In return, Mr. Obama presented the Prime Minister with a set of 25 DVDs of American movies. As if this were not tacky enough, they are American DVDs and do not play in British DVD players. He also returned the bronze bust of Winston Churchill that has been in the Oval Office since Tony Blair presented it to us after the 9/11 attacks. As reported by the New York Daily News, the British People were incensed at the slights.

Not to be outdone, Michelle Obama’s gifts to the Brown children were in equally bad taste. The Times of London reported that Mrs. Brown presented the Obamas’ daughters with, “really nice presents. A bit of thought had clearly gone into choosing them: Top Shop dresses (with matching necklaces) and a selection of books by British authors.” In return, Mrs. Obama gave the Browns’ sons toy models of Marine One, the presidential helicopter. “Short of giving the boys Action Man models of her own husband smiting the evil forces of neoconservatism,” said The Times, “Mrs Obama’s gesture could not have been more solipsistic or more inherently dismissive of Mrs Brown.” The Daily Telegraph’s James Delingpole is now calling Mrs. Obama ‘Lady MacBeth.’

According to The Telegraph, The White House explained that Mr. Obama was simply too exhausted from dealing with the economic crisis to bother with the “diplomatic niceties of the special relationship” with Britain. The Telegraph quoted one American official who noted that, so far, Mr. Obama has failed to “even fake an interest in foreign policy.” Most disturbingly The Telegraph cited a State Department official who articulated the new administration’s view of Britain by saying, “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.” If this statement true, it is a wretched thing to say of our strongest and most loyal ally. Glenn Beck may be correct in calling on us to write the British Embassy to apologize for our President’s appalling manners.

However, such an attitude may explain why The Times reports Britain is also finding it “unbelievably difficult” to deal with the Obama administration in planning the G20 summit or get clarity on what Obama wants to do to rescue the world’s economies.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has announced his plans to reach out diplomatically to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Do recall that the Taliban is a fundamentalist Islamic movement that supports Sharia law and a medieval view of human rights while endorsing Osama bin Laden and jihadist actions against the United States. This is apparently the ‘change’ Obama promised us with respect to foreign policy: hold talks with avowed enemies and insult our greatest allies. If Mr. Obama treats the Taliban leaders in the same way he has treated the Prime Minister of England, I expect they will be issuing a new fatwa against the United States in the very near future.

Ordeal by trial

by John Martin | 7:18 pm, March 10, 2009

Attended most of today’s Wart-trial proceedings. Yeah, I heard the “howling mob at the gates demanding the big, fat haid of Ward Churchill” line from Lane, which the accounts I’ve read lead with, but why is that surprising? Here’s my scoop: Did you know there’s a piece of software called TrialDirector? Blurb: Imagine your next [...]

If Big Brother REALLY Loved Us He’d Buy Us a Car. Seriously.

by Joss Armstrong | 6:47 pm, March 10, 2009

The Stimulus plan is B.S.  No matter how noble (and the porkulus package is far from noble) the use of the money there is nothing that justifies the U.S. government making its citizens involuntary indentured servants.  Least in the old days you had to agree to enter into a contract of indenture. Not anymore. But [...]

RMA 2.0: Rocky Mtn Blogs Radio Show #17

by elpresidente | 5:48 pm, March 10, 2009

**NOTE: New time and extended format–Every Tuesday–next show March 10, 8:30 pm.

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

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

Last week (all shows archived): March 3 lineup–two candidates for Fort Collins City Council, Aislinn Kottwitz (District 3) and Andrew Boucher (District 5), and Tom Stone, who is challenging Dick Wadhams for state party chairmanship.

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

Indoctrinate U trailer:

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

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

Next week–TBD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The December 12 edition featured Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier.

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

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

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

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

Letter to the IRS

by zombiehunter | 5:12 pm, March 10, 2009

Ed Barnett isn’t thrilled about tax season this year. Could it be the double standard we’re facing in enforcement of the Rule of Law? Seems to be a different law for the monarchy than there is for the peasants. Here’s Ed’s satirical letter: Dear IRS, I’m sorry to inform you that I’m not going to [...]

The New Citibank

by Joss Armstrong | 12:57 pm, March 10, 2009

The New, Nationalized Citibank!

Churchill Trialpalooza Opening Arguments: Churchill’s Attorney–”Mob Mentality” Against Client, Churchill “Never Plagiarized”

by elpresidente | 11:57 am, March 10, 2009

“The media was out of control — it was an absolute mob mentality”–Ward Churchill’s attorney David Lane, in opening arguments

“Churchill lost his job because he breached the trust of being a university professor. Professor Churchill did things that an eighth grader knows is wrong”–CU defense attorney Patrick O’Rourke

From the Daily Camera–Ward’s legal counsel David Lane trots out the Churchill-as-martyr trope:

David Lane, Ward Churchill’s attorney, invoked the names of Italian astronomer Galileo, who heretically declared that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and Tenessee teacher John Scopes, who was condemned for teaching evolution in school, as direct comparisons to what his client has undergone in the wake of writing a controversial essay on 9/11.

“Fast forward to 2005… Boulder, Colorado,” Lane said during opening statements Tuesday morning.

Lane then moves on accuse CU Boulder of conducting a essentially a “lie-finding” mission using “pet poodles” selected to oust the professor:

Once Churchill’s essay became widely public in January 2005, he told the jury, the media wouldn’t let it drop.

“The media was out of control — it was an absolute mob mentality,” Lane said.

He said former Gov. Bill Owens threatened to cut funding to CU if it didn’t fire Churchill. National media figures also jumped on the anti-Churchill bandwagon, he said.

Lane said all of that pressure prompted CU to find any way it could to get rid of the ethnic studies professor. It didn’t stand up for him and defend his free expression rights, Lane said.

“They ran like cowards and they sacrificed this man because they were afraid of the howling mob,” he said. “Lacking in courage, CU hung him out to dry.”

Lane said the school undertook a full fledged effort to find anything it could in the dozens of books Churchill had written or edited that would justify terminating him. The school picked its own “pet poodles” to head up its committee to look into his client’s work, he said, like CU law professor Mimi Wesson. Lane said Wesson, who made disparaging comments about the former professor, was in charge of the Standing Committee for Research Misconduct.

But Lane’s biggest challenge, aside from trying to prove that his client was wrongfully terminated due to bias inherent in the system, is his own goal of disproving that Churchill in fact plagiarized or was responsible for any academic misconduct:

He said he would prove to the jury that Churchill never plagiarized and never falsified his work, as the school asserts.

“I think you will see that this guy has devoted his life to telling the truth for people who are not given a voice in society,” Lane said, referring to Churchill’s long-time affiliation with Native American communities.

He asked the jury to make his client whole again.

Yeah, good luck with that.

CU’s attorney Patrick O’Rourke defended the university’s actions, declared Churchill’s essay “protected speech,” but that he committed the “worst kind of academic fraud” possible, and compared his ability to discern appropriate academic behavior to that of a 13-yr-old:

However, he said, when the school began receiving allegations of academic misconduct attributed to the professor, it investigated his writings and found eight instances of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. A committee of 20 tenured professors made the determination, he said.

O’Rourke said Churchill’s attempts to defend his work on various occasions over the past two years came up short in the eyes of his professorial peers, who held out the possibility that Churchill may have simply made honest errors. They characterized his misconduct as severe, deliberate and damaging.

“They said this is wrong,” O’Rourke said. “Churchill lost his job because he breached the trust of being a university professor. Professor Churchill did things that an eighth grader knows is wrong.”

More to come this afternoon.

More on the ex-professor in SP’s extensive Ward Churchill archives.

More at Drunkablog and PirateBallerina.

Perhaps the 15 minutes are over–altry attendance and lack on national press coverage.

The Denver Channel 7 has a Twitter-style liveblog going as well, and has the testimony from the first witness for the plaintiff:

Professor Evelyn Wu-Dehard [Hu-DeHart, ed.] is called to the stand.

She is a professor of history and ethnic studies at Brown University, formerly at CU.

Says ethnic studies emerged from the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s. Says the contributions of blacks, Hispanics and Asians had been ignored for years. The notion of citizenship was reserved for white people.

“When CU tried to recruit me … Ward Churchill was already here.”

Her opionion: Ward Churchill is one of the leading Native American scholars. One whose scholarship crosses a wide range. His impact is perhaps the single largest of all in ethnic studies.

“I think the worst thing that can happen to a scholar is when no one cares about you. When you provoke others. That is the highest testament to scholars.”

She had written that Ward Churchill was not your typical academic.

He was in academic services. He had already be publishing and writing as a scholar. He did not have the usual criteria. Absence of Phd., which says you have an analytical mind. He was able to convince CU to hire him because of his published works.

She said he was an activist… an applied scholar. He takes information and applies it to areas of social import.

Break for lunch, resume at 1:30pm.

Churchill Trialpalooza Roundup

by elpresidente | 11:56 am, March 10, 2009

**Update–More from Drunkablog–jury selection completed:

A jury of four men and four women — including two alternates — has been seated in Ward Churchill’s wrongful termination trial against the University of Colorado.

Denver District Judge Larry Naves gave a set of admonishments to the jury, telling them not to read about the case in newspapers or on the Internet or to watch anything about it on television.

Opening statements are scheduled to be made Tuesday at 9 a.m.

The lawyers in the case took an hour vetting the prospective jury as a group Monday afternoon, asking questions about the role of the First Amendment and about the kind of questions a public university has the right to ask when an employee is making controversial statements.

They also asked the jurors if they thought they could be fair in the case.

Lawyers had already met individually with each potential juror in the morning.

Bonus video from last week’s Ward rally at CU, with moonbats issuing support from the “free speech” cage.

---

Drunkablog made the rounds this morning in Civic Center park (“Save Ward!” rally) and the Denver City and County building for the jury selection, but not much was going on . . . yet.

Looking at the Left has more reflections on the Churchill kerfuffle, and kook-aid guzzling Ben Whitmer soldiers on in his support of his idol mentor.

Churchill’s lawyer, David Lane, parrots the continued charge of a CU “witch hunt” borrowed from William “free as a bird” Ayers:

“He is looking forward to having his day in court finally in a public forum so the public can hear what this witch hunt was all about,” Lane said.

The trial is being held in the courtroom of Denver Chief District Judge Larry J. Naves.

Prospective jurors began receiving questionnaires about their knowledge of Churchill and the facts of the case last week.

The jury will be asked to consider two claims: that the university retaliated against Chur chill first by launching an investigation into his academic record and then by firing him. Churchill, 61, is seeking reinstatement and a financial judgment.

“In firing Mr. Churchill, CU did the right thing in the right way for the right reasons,” said Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for the CU system. “Essentially, I think that Churchill has had a trial by a jury of his peers and now he wants a do-over, and so we hope the jury sees things the way we do.”

Churchill was roundly criticized in the court of public opinion, justifiably terminated by due process of his academic peers, and now has his day in court.

Some see no resolution in sight, and the decision in this lawsuit as anything but the final word in the Churchill/CU saga.

Stay tuned for more “As the Ward Turns”–as the lawsuit’s first full day will commence tomorrow with opening arguments scheduled for 8:30 am Tuesday.

Obama Administration Continues America’s March of Death

by Mr. Bob | 9:12 am, March 10, 2009

MSNBC Poll, grade Obama

by Mr. Bob | 8:33 am, March 10, 2009

#tcot #hhrs Be truthful now, and don’t worry about breaking Chris Matthew’s heart. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/

“Card Check” fight begins in earnest

by Rossputin | 12:57 am, March 10, 2009

Sometime today, we expect The Employee Free Choice Act, also known as “card check” to be introduced in both the House and the Senate.

The good news is that it will be difficult to get it through the Senate. The bad news is that it is not impossible. (It will almost certainly pass the House.)

Although even liberals’ favorite investor, Warren Buffett, has come out against Card Check, the Democrats are too beholden to unions to be easily swayed against the bill which will eliminate the requirement of a secret ballot to unionize a company.

(Note: The last second that’s cut off is Buffett adding “I think card check is a mistake.”

Even the name of the measure, implying that it adds to employees’ choices, is Orwellian. What it does is makes workers susceptible to public pressure from union organizers and thugs, and from union member co-workers by calling for public signing of union organizing cards.

Most Americans who understand anything about the issue oppose EFCA. Indeed, a January poll by McLaughlin and Associates shows opposition by 74% of respondents including 74% of union households. Furthermore, quoting from the press release, “When given a more detailed description of the Employee Free Choice Act, nearly 9 out of 10 voters, 86%, feel the process should remain private and only 8% feel it should be public information. Again, even union workers feel strongly that the process should be kept private, as 88% said private and only 8% said public.”

Now, liberals will whine that McLaughlin is a Republican polling firm and therefore its results are biased. And maybe that’s true. But with numbers so overwhelming, it’s impossible to believe that even a liberal polling firm wouldn’t find broad public opposition to EFCA if the question were asked in a non-leading manner. (For example, a poll done by the AFL-CIO which shows support for EFCA leaves out the fact that the “card check” will be done in public!)

The arguments against EFCA are extremely strong, and the arguments for it extremely weak. Yet it has a real chance of passing because of the Democrats’ dominance in Congress and the president’s stated desire to pass it.

Richard Epstein, one of America’s foremost thinkers in the area of political economy has written a scathing criticism of EFCA:
The Case Against the Employee Free Choice Act

In his paper, Epstein argues against not only the elimination of the secret ballot but also against the imposition of binding arbitration between a company and a newly-formed union who can’t agree on a contract.

I encourage you to read the paper yourself to really understand the issue and the lies coming from unions.

Epstein also describes how declining private sector union membership is not unique to the US and “not attributable to any defect, real or imagined, in the present election process.”

A study by Anne Layne-Farrar which was released just last week, called “An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications“, offers the following abstract:

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which is pending before the US Congress, would provide for union representation when an employee majority has signed union authorization cards and would create a system of mandatory arbitration if a collective bargaining agreement is not reached approximately 130 days after a union is newly certified. I critically assess the arguments presented for passing EFCA and consider the likely unintended consequences it will generate, should it be passed. I find that while card checks could be expected to increase union membership as hoped by EFCA proponents, EFCA is unlikely to achieve its main goal of improving social welfare, which should take into account possible consequences not only for union members but for all individuals. In particular, my quantitative analysis indicates that passing EFCA would likely increase the US unemployment rate and decrease US job creation substantially. The precise effect on unemployment will depend on the degree to which EFCA increases union density, but for every 3 percentage points gained in union membership through card checks and mandatory arbitration, the following year’s unemployment rate is predicted to increase by 1 percentage point and job creation is predicted to fall by around 1.5 million jobs. Thus, if EFCA passed today and resulted in an increase in unionization from the current rate of about 12% to 15%, then unionized workers would increase from 15.5 to 19.6 million while unemployment a year from now would rise by 1.5 million, to 10.4 million. If EFCA were to increase the percentage of private sector union membership by between 5 and 10 percentage points, as some have suggested, my analysis indicates that unemployment would increase by 2.3 to 5.4 million in the following year and the unemployment rate would increase by 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points in the following year.”

The entire paper can be read HERE.

(Some of the same people were involved in researching and writing both papers, so it’s not surprising they have similar conclusions.)

Card Check is a dangerous and cynical power grab by Democrats for their union masters. It is the second most dangerous item on Barack Obama’s agenda, after “cap and trade”, but it stands a better chance of passage than “cap and trade” does.

It, like most of Obama’s “economic” policy, is actually a politically-motivated ploy which even the President can’t possibly believe would be good for the economy.

I strongly Americans from all walks of life to contact their Senators (and, to a lesser degree their Representatives) and urge them to oppose EFCA.

A Letter From the Power Company

by T.L. James | 9:38 pm, March 9, 2009

Along with this month’s power bill came an interesting letter from the utility…interesting in how politically incorrect it is:
How long we will be able to freeze our rate depends upon federal and state energy policies.  Many in Congress see a CO2 cap and trade scheme or carbon tax as a lucrative source of potential government [...]

David Theroux on The Obama Bear Market

by Rossputin | 8:02 pm, March 9, 2009

David Theroux of the Independent Institute has written an article (much as we’re seeing from a myriad of sources) about the stock market’s reaction to Barack Obama’s economic policies.

While it’s as much a recap as a source of new information, the article is worth reading and passing around just for the reinforcement of the important points that:
1) stock markets are not compatible with socialism or fascism, both of which the US is suffering from today,
2) that our current economic turmoil was caused by excessive government, not by deregulation, and
3) that the policies that are destroying the country are fundamentally designed to achieve the liberals’ political goals rather than being serious or sound economic policy.

See “The Obama Bear Market: “Never waste a good crisis””, David Theroux, 3/6/09
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=1496

U.S. Supreme Court’s Ysursa Ruling a Sweet Victory for Clean Government

by Ben DeGrow | 5:07 pm, March 9, 2009

Update (3/10): Mike Reitz weighs in with an observation some of my readers may have a hard time believing: “Public policy wonks are real people, too.”
Here’s a U.S. Supreme Court decision that may have flown past your radar – Ysursa v Pocatello Education Association. The ruling ensures states (like Idaho and Utah already have done) [...]

Grading Obama

by Rossputin | 11:29 am, March 9, 2009

[update: 9 hours after writing this note, Barack’s grade is now 54% “F".]

MSNBC is running an online poll asking “If you were grading Barack Obama on his performance as president, what would he get?”. At the moment I’m writing this note, 42% of the over 19,000 responses give him an “F”. Help me get it over 50% by going to the site and giving Obama the grade he deserves.

NOTE: If you have two different browsers, i.e. Internet Explorer and Firefox, you should be able to vote once in each. Also, you can vote from the office and then again at home. (Hey, I did learn something about voting while living all those years in Chicago.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093/

Charlie Rangel, meet Jason Mattera

by zombiehunter | 8:11 am, March 9, 2009

Jason Mattera, People’s Press Collective’s comrade from the DNC, is back at it again. Jason took Hot Air TV to Capitol Hill to ask Congressman Charlie “Tax-Cheating” Rangel a few questions about his, corrupt, um, morally grey, well, just watch the vid… Jason, dude, why don’t you just “mind your own goddamned business?”

Obama Too Tired to Deal with Foreign Policy

by Mr. Bob | 8:07 am, March 9, 2009

#tcot #stimulus It’s amateur hour on Capital Hill. Apparently the President is wiped out from the trillions in new spending he is overseeing…I’d be tired too.

Mark Hillman Elaborates on Democrat Shell Game at Colorado State Capitol

by Ben DeGrow | 8:05 am, March 9, 2009

Yes, I pointed out to you the Democrat shell game (with your tax dollars, transportation projects, and social welfare spending) taking place at the State Capitol. But leave it to Mark Hillman to explain it more eloquently, and with greater depth and context.
Here’s the key section:

If it sounds like Democrats are talking out of both [...]

Bill Menezes and Colorado Media Matters still can’t get facts straight on alleged U.S. – Mexico “Assault Weapons” smuggling

by Captain Arapahoe | 3:03 am, March 9, 2009

One-bit mega-hack Bill Menezes (yes, he gets paid one-eigth of a million dollars to be professionally outraged) and/or his legion of paid minions (Bill, I hope you’re at least paying them minimum wage with Tim Gill’s money, and not just exploiting unpaid interns – leave that to the poor underfunded Independence Institute) still can’t get the facts straight on the alleged “U.S.-Mexico Connection” supposedly smuggling a “flood” of “assault weapons” to Mexican drug cartels.

Going Galt: Reflections on Bill Kristol’s Optimism

by Rossputin | 1:39 am, March 9, 2009

On Friday night, I had the privilege to hear Bill Kristol speak as the dinner keynote speaker at the 2009 Leadership Program of the Rockies Annual Retreat.

In brief, Mr. Kristol’s argument (as I understood it…he might say I misunderstood him) was that while he did not want to play down the bad situation the nation and the political prospects for conservatives are in today, he is fairly optimistic that both, but particularly the latter will recover in a reasonable time frame, and that the Republican Party will adopt good ideas which percolate up from grassroots political activists and thinkers outside the usual conservative channels.

A well-known conservative blogger (who will remain nameless) asked me what I thought of Mr. Kristol’s remarks. And after a brief time considering the question (which, strangely, I hadn’t spent time considering before the person asked), I have reached a several-part answer:

First, I’m less optimistic than Mr. Kristol that the national situation will improve in any important way for at least 6 more months, but more likely 12-18 months. In other words, I think this will shatter all records for post-WWII recessions.

Second, I’m somewhat less optimistic that even a slightly longer-than average economic downturn will help Republican prospects as much as one might expect unless the Republicans stay as united as fiscal conservatives as the House GOP did on the “stimulus” bill…and I don’t expect that to happen, particularly not in the Senate.

Third, I am highly skeptical that Republican leadership, which includes so many of the old guard, are capable of getting through their thick skulls that my prior point is correct. If they did get it, they would have massively arm-twisted their caucus members to remove their earmarks from the budget bill now being debated, so they could claim something like “over 90% of the earmarks in the proposed budget are from Democrats” instead of the current case which is roughly 60% from Democrats and 40% from Republicans. I doubt they will be open (especially on the Senate side, again) to ground-breaking new ideas which come from outside the beltway.

Finally, thinking back on all this, I occurs to me – and keep in mind that I’m a person whose son’s middle name is Rand – that I’m not certain I want things in the nation to suddenly start improving, i.e. to improve in a way that could let progressives argue that Obama’s reprehensible generational theft in the form of Keynsian spending and stimulus bills actually caused a beneficial economic outcome.

It would be like the Democrats who argue that Clinton’s tax hike was a good thing, economically speaking, because the economy improved afterward, despite that being so obviously a falsehood, an impossibility, that only a “progressive” could believe it. (“Progressive” is Latin for “I never studied economics, but I’m pretty certain I’m smarter than you are”.) Instead, there are other factors in the economy which can (and did) in concert overwhelm the income tax rate hike. (It bears mentioning that Clinton passed a large capital gains tax cut, which few liberals ever talk about when discussing the effect of Clinton’s tax policy on the economy.)

This is not easy to say or think…but at the end of the day, I go further than Rush Limbaugh as far as wanting Obama to fail.

I don’t want the nation to fail. Unlike Michelle Obama and, in my view, our President, I love my country. After all, wanting to remake something completely is hardly a sign of deep love and appreciation for it. But if having things be a little worse for a little longer, or even substantially worse for substantially longer, might be the difference between people believing in Keynsianism and people realizing that Obama’s New New Deal and its predecessor were economic disasters based on an obviously flawed theoretical foundation, I think the price is worth our paying. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I want “progressive” economic thinking to be so thoroughly disproved that future generations won’t get hoodwinked by promises of “hope” and “change” like so many economically illiterate Americans did in November.

I will suffer through one or two worse years if it means my descendants won’t be put through a second Barack Obama (or, roughly, a third Jimmy Carter.)

It’s great to see discussions on the web of people “going Galt.” If enough productive members of society decide that it’s simply not worth the risk and effort to strive for the next dollar, it is not primarily they who will suffer economically. It is those who believe in redistribution, who believe that Obama would and should make “government” pay her rent (and we thought she was insane when she said that – turns out she was psychic.) Those so interested in being recipients of government redistribution of wealth, the “looters” and the “moochers” as Ayn Rand calls them in Atlas Shrugged, just let them try to redistribute income from people who simply quit working because we’re not willing to be looted and mooched from. Yes, we are living Atlas Shrugged, and we might as well not quit halfway through the story.

I’ve done this once already…I moved out of the US for nearly 2 years after Bill Clinton raised tax rates, and moved back just in time for the capital gains tax cut. Let me be clear: I gave up two years of at least $200,000 (but probably a fair bit more) per year, just so I didn’t have to pay taxes to Bill Clinton’s government. My money is where my mouth is in a way that few people can claim. And Clinton was a piker and a conservative in comparison to Obama.

So, in case I haven’t been clear enough: As long as we’re already going to have a fairly bad recession, I’m saying let it be worse and longer. Let more people be persistently unemployed, let the economy drag along the sludge-laden bottom of the progressive sewer, let businesses close down or move overseas, let tens or hundreds of thousands of capable people publicly declare how excessive taxation and regulation is causing them to work less, take less risk, and employ fewer Americans, and finally let people recognize that capitalists are not a “necessary evil” but rather that they are a necessary good.

Most people don’t learn truly important lessons unless they are taught in an expensive or painful way. A once-and-for-all repudiation of Keynsianism is a lesson that is too important not to be learned in such a way.

Many people who have survived cancer say that the chemotherapy was so bad, they almost wish the cancer had just killed them. But any treatment that didn’t make them nearly wish for death would not cure the disease, which would often recur with a greater chance of killing the patient the second time around. And so it is with the recurrent national cancers that are Keynsianism and the politicians who impose it. The New Deal sickened the nation. Obama’s New New Deal could kill it, but the chemotherapy of a recession severe enough to cause voters to say “never again” might just save the patient – even if the patient might wish to die during the treatment.

Therefore, I proudly proclaim I want Obama to fail, even if it means temporary substantial hardship for the nation. The Keynsian cancer must be cured, once and for all.

Let us all be John Galt.

HB 1273: Politicians cannot “guarantee” health care

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, March 9, 2009

Politicians cannot guarantee healthcare, but by trying they can create an unaccountable and toxic insurance monopoly. So beware of Colorado House Bill 1273, which will be heard by the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee on March 18.  The Rocky Mountain News described this so-called “Colorado Guaranteed Healthcare Act” as a “Canadian-style, single-payer” bill.  A [...]

Stop the Time Change Madness

by Ben DeGrow | 3:13 pm, March 8, 2009

Perhaps I’m making this post in more of a sleep-deprived than clear-thinking state, but can’t we just end the “daylight saving” twice-a-year-time-switch madness? My personal preference would me to put us on daylight saving time all year long, but you can make your voice heard on an online petition. There’s also a group on Facebook.

CU Boulder Proceeds With Event Featuring William Ayers And Ward Churchill Despite Non-Payment Of Security Fees

by elpresidente | 12:41 am, March 7, 2009

**Update–full video of Ayers’ speech courtesy of People’s Press Collective:

Drunkablog has a recap and pics, updates on Ward Churchill’s lawsuit, and PirateBallerina has an excellent roundup of the “slew” of Churchill/Ayers-palooza last night in Boulder.

The William Ayers/Ward Churchill farce event at CU Boulder–”Forbidden Education and the Rise of Neo-McCarthyism” will proceed with the security required for the event.

The student groups hosting the Weather Undergrounder William Ayers and ex-professor Ward Churchill are griping about the security costs, and insist that the speakers are the reason for the “extra” charges:

Students for True Academic Freedom, which is sponsoring the event, said CU officials are unfairly imposing a $3,000 security fee to try to stop the event from happening.

The fee would cover the cost of having campus police at the engagement.

“The fees are exorbitant,” said Aaron Smith, an organizer with the group. Smith said his group has already arranged for student security and neither Ayers nor Churchill has requested extra security.

“There’s an effort to punish us financially, our student group specifically, because of the nature of who we’re bringing out,” said another organizer, Sean Daly.

This is patently absurd and incorrect.

I attended CU Boulder from 1997-2001 and for a few years after in graduate school, and the speakers we brought out through College Republicans often had security requirements. This was especially true when we hosted an event with NRA President Charlton Heston in March of 2000, less than a year after the Columbine High School shooting. There were anti-gun protesters in large numbers, as well as a small contingent of gun owners who thought the NRA was too moderate. There was a heightened sense of emotion surrounding the gun control issue in the late ’90s, especially in Colorado following the Columbine shooting. We needed the security.

CU’s response:

CU Boulder spokesman Bronson Hilliard said the decision to add the extra security fee was based on logistics, not content.

“It’s got nothing to do with any difference of opinion we would have with Mr. Churchill or anyone else,” Hilliard said. “It has to do with a baseline assessment of the security needs we have to make that a safe evening for everyone in the audience and for these speakers themselves.”

Hilliard said the security fee is in line with what student groups typically pay for high-profile events featuring well-known speakers.

Last summer Hilliard said the campus College Republicans paid $4,800 in security fees related to an event featuring two men who claimed to be former members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

“We’re treating them exactly the same as we’ve treated every other student organization. There’s absolutely nothing here on our part that has anything to do with the content of the program that evening,” said Hilliard.

Fairness, however, is not in the student groups’ vocabulary.

Whining about oppression, obviously, is:

But Daly and Smith said their group has invited the exact same speakers to CU in the past and did not have to pay for additional security.

“Bill Ayers and Derrick Jensen and Ward Churchill have never had to pay for that kind of security cost,” Daly said.

University officials said things have changed since then.

Last year, during the presidential campaign, Ayers became a household name when he was labeled an “unrepentant terrorist” who sat on an education board with Barack Obama. Since then, he has received death threats.

Smith and Daly acknowledge said if university officials feel that extra security is needed, they should pay for it.

But Hilliard said waiving the fee or having the university pay it, would set a bad precedent.

“No student organization in the history of the university has ever refused to pay and bear their share of the burden for security costs,” he said.

And they won’t go down without a fight:

But that is exactly what Students for True Academic Freedom plan to do and they said they will not shy away from a legal battle if the university insists that they pay.

“We’ll be seeing CU in court,” said Daly.

The event is expected to go forward with full security on Thursday, March 5, at 7 p.m. in the UMC Glenn Miller Ballroom.

CU officials said the students will be permitted to pay the security fee after the event and if they do not, it may go to a collection agency.

Speaking of court, Ward’s lawsuit jury selection began today.

Drunkablog and People’s Press Collective will be there to cover the event and provide after action reports (photos, audio–courtesy of Drunkablog’s fine efforts)–stay tuned for updates.

Bonus: Behold the “free speech cage” at CU Boulder in advance of this intellectual endeavor.

My New Favorite Tea Company

by Mr. Bob | 4:21 pm, March 6, 2009

#tcot #stimulus updated;

Michelle Malkin reported Friday on a company called The Portsmouth Tea Company in Somersworth, NH has volunteered to donate 70 pounds of tea for the Tax Day Tea Party protests scheduled for April 15.

Support the business that support taxpayers!

The Portsmouth Tea Company website is here.

Read the Whole Report HERE

More updated information. Apparently liberals are pretty upset with any corporate help for tea parties. The PPC covered this early last week. Many are doing their best to discredit stories about tea parties by saying they are not grass roots but rather corporately funded. I could care less who funds them, corporations are who we all work for and they are hurting in part because of high taxes and an inept congress. Playboy pulled a story on corporate funding for tea parties, but I see no such retraction about the Portsmouth Tea Company

Rep. Tom Price shows off a pile of steaming pork

by Mr. Bob | 2:51 pm, March 6, 2009

#tcot #stimulus

hat tip Redstate

Assault Weapons in Mexico not from US, sorry Bill

by Jon Caldara | 2:31 pm, March 6, 2009

To get this post you just gotta read the response from the infatuated Bill Menezes.  Ever wondered what it’s like to try to have a rational discussion with someone paid to be constantly offended?
Imagine that you take your eleven-year-old nephew to the aquarium. You’re standing in front of a dolphin tank, and the nephew says [...]

Boulder Buffoonery – Bill Ayers and Ward Churchill at CU Boulder

by Ikonoclast | 12:41 pm, March 6, 2009

Random musings on the so-called “True Academic Freedom” confab Bill Ayers forever ruined “Life of Brian” for me. In the midst of a rambling, hour+ long unfocused discourse on “resistance”, “protest”, and “dissent” Ayers quoted a truly funny scene from the great Monty Python movie in which Brian, a reluctant messiah, addresses a crowd of [...]

TGIF: Obama as Urkel

by Ben DeGrow | 9:52 am, March 6, 2009

From Michelle Malkin and Right Wing News (take your pick):

The Obamessiah meets one of the more well represented figures on all-time “most annoying TV characters” lists.
The first person who can accurately identify the reference in the title of the post, please leave a comment below to win the prize …
… of a satisfying job well [...]

Republicans Delay Omnibus Vote

by Mr. Bob | 9:16 am, March 6, 2009

#tcot #stimulus Senate Republicans forced a delay on consideration of the $410 billion omni-pork spending bill. Harry Reid canceled the vote after confessing that he was one vote short of the 60 needed to shut off debate and move forward.
READ THE REST

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers