Obama’s fascism overwhelms auto industry

by Rossputin | 1:10 am, May 20, 2009

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from Tuesday’s announcement of an “agreement” among governments, environmentalists, and auto makers, it’s that if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.

It is remarkable – and frightening – to read of those groups as “former foes”. If automakers are not foes of the environmentalists, one thing is certain: Consumers are getting screwed.

The Obama Administration is proposing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, 4 years earlier than Congress had mandated in 2007. Furthermore, the administration will for the first time regulate tailpipe carbon emissions in their Quixotic quest to limit carbon dioxide – a compound with no proven negative effects of any sort.

Keep in mind when you hear about the automakers agreeing to this plan that there must be something they expect to be extremely beneficial to them, just as the major tobacco companies agreed to their industry settlement some years ago even though the public thought that “Big Tobacco” was being punished. What’s happened since then? The plan all but eliminated the possibility of new competition in that business, thus protecting the companies’ profit margins, and the price of cigarettes has gone up 10-fold. I don’t smoke – I never have – but is creating a tobacco version of OPEC really what the public thought they were getting? This MUST be what’s happening now. We just don’t know the details yet.

And now that government owns large stakes or at least is a major creditor of these companies, they have no room to complain. As I’ve said a few times lately, they are being reminded of Dick Armey’s maxim that when you make a deal with the devil you are the junior partner. Make no mistake: When it comes to a free-market economy, Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership are the devil. After seeing the President fire the CEO of a private company (Rick Wagoner of GM), after hearing that the White House threatened a hedge fund that was pushing back on the horrible terms Chrysler bond holders were offered, who in the business community has the will to fight back?

There are a few likely ways this repugnant collaboration will play out, and the way the media is describing, with simply an expected $800 to $1,600 increase in the cost of a car in a few years is not one of them.

Here is my take on the most likely outcome:

In the next two years, one or more of the Big 3 will fail because the costs of retooling to meet these standards were impossible, particularly for companies still in the grip of unions. (Or, it might get to a position where it normally would fail, but the political damage to our fascist president from that outcome would be so large that Congress will throw more money at the company to prop it up.)

Before 2012, then the new standards being to take place, the value of used pickup trucks, SUV’s and other soon-to-be-nearly-illegal cars will skyrocket. During the next two years, people will start buying “inefficient” vehicles as investments. (Thanks to Don Boudreaux for the idea about the plan boosting the value of used cars while lowering the value of new car models, if not their price.)

Before 2016, more people will die in car accidents because of small, light, unsafe cars, and the planet will have shown us clearly that there is no man-made global warming. Prices of US-made cars will have risen more than estimates.

Also, well before 2016, it will be clear that by the time 2016 arrives, the only companies which will have had any success in having an average fuel economy near the new standard will be the Chinese, followed somewhat closely by the Japanese whose average will still be higher because they will still be making some cars that many people actually want to buy. The Big 3 (more likely Big 2 by then) will get temporary waivers from the requirement and Congress will try to pass protectionist legislation, making it harder for foreign companies to compete, and raising the cost of living and the cost of doing business for every American who uses a car.

People will get so angry that the government is moving to make pick-up trucks, SUVs, and safe cars (that won’t collapse under the weight of a small rodent) unaffordable – for no actual benefit and at huge actual cost – that there will be a massive electoral backlash against Democrats. Republicans will win large majorities in Congress between 2012 and 2014 on a platform of repealing these standards.

I must say that along my “we’re living Atlas Shrugged” theme, I’m glad this is happening. It will take this sort of egregious over-reach, this sort of elimination of consumer choice from an electorate that expects to generally be able to buy what they want to if they can afford it, this sort of fascist control over private enterprise, to cause the benumbed public to awaken from their torpor and realize that command economies don’t work, never have worked, can’t work, and are extremely destructive to the standard of living of those souls unfortunate enough to live in a place which attempts central planning.

Make no mistake; this is NOT about the environment. This is, just like “cap and trade” and “health care reform”, about giving government maximum control over our economic lives, about letting government pick winners and losers so that the winners can then re-elect the (Democratic) politicians who picked them, and about attacking capitalism.

Although I am not a social issues conservative, I’ve said for some time that the type of destruction of freedom which “liberals” want is far more dangerous than the elimination of social issues freedoms which liberals claim to value. I’m pro-choice, but if it comes to our society losing the right to abortion on demand versus losing our private property, it’s not exactly difficult to see which is the greater threat to our Republic.

Talking to Mike Rosen about the Boulder Teacher “Sickout” & Other Labor Issues

by Ben DeGrow | 3:32 pm, May 19, 2009

Feeling ill because of the teacher sickout in Boulder Valley School District? Another 269 teachers came down with the phantom cough today.
Few things can drive people as crazy as trying to figure out the ins-and-outs of Colorado labor laws and policies, and how they apply to teachers and possible teacher strikes. So Mike Rosen had [...]

RMA 2.0: Rocky Mtn Blogs Radio Show #27

by elpresidente | 2:37 pm, May 19, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indoctrinate U trailer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The December 12 edition featured Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier.

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

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

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

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

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

One Lucky Kiddo

by zombiehunter | 11:52 am, May 19, 2009

Pic of the day: I have to agree with Laurel, over at Politics, Guns & Beer, that this is way cooler than a McDonald’s ball pit!

Tax Me Enough and I’m Going Mobile

by Jon Caldara | 11:26 am, May 19, 2009

The Wall Street Journal had a fantastic op-ed yesterday from two of the most distinguished economists of our day.  Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich written by the famous Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore, told of the unfortunate situation high tax states find themselves in, relative to low tax states.  At present, high tax states [...]

Armentano Versus Antitrust

by Ari Armstrong | 10:51 am, May 19, 2009

Dominick Armentano has penned an op-ed against antitrust for the Christian Science Monitor, “The problem with Obama’s antitrust plan.”

He summarizes:

The free market does not need more strict antitrust policy; it needs simple protection from fraud. The problem is that, in the 119 years that antitrust laws have existed, there is little empirical evidence that “vigorous enforcement” of them can promote the interests of consumers… Indeed, antitrust history is riddled with silly theories and absurd cases that themselves have restricted and restrained free-market competition and hampered an efficient allocation of resources.

Read Armentano’s brief history of antitrust laws — particularly if you are one of those “conservatives” who thinks central economic planners should play a role here.

A competitive market means a free market, which means a world in which the unjust antitrust laws have been repealed.

RMA Blog Talk Radio Tonight at 8:30: Legislative Session, Rep. Kent Lambert

by Ben DeGrow | 7:53 am, May 19, 2009

Tune in tonight at 8:30 PM local Mountain time for the 27th edition of Rocky Mountain Alliance Blog Talk Radio. We hope to dedicate this episode to a review of the good, the bad, and the ugly from the recently concluded legislative session in Denver. Our special guest will be Representative Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, [...]

The National Debt Road Trip

by Rossputin | 2:13 am, May 19, 2009

An easy-to-grasp way to compare Obama’s spending with that of prior presidents. (H/T to Dominic Rupprecht from the National Taxpayers Union blog.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

Mark Steyn: Live Free or Die

by Rossputin | 12:48 am, May 19, 2009

This speech by Mark Steyn should be required reading for every American. Any further editorial commentary by me is unnecessary as Steyn’s words more than speak for themselves.

Read “Live Free or Die“, by Mark Steyn, Imprimis, April 2009
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=04

Imprimis is a free monthly publication (just a short pamphlet containing a speech given to a Hillsdale College-related audience.) You can and should sign up here:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/subs_new.asp

Out-of-state interests deliver for Michael Bennet

by admin | 7:36 pm, May 18, 2009

Michael Bennet’s hefty fundraising in the first quarter of the year may have been intimidating at first glance, but a closer examination reveals that the bulk of the money came from out-of-state. Potential primary opponents to Bennet should especially take notice, as his fundraising among traditional Democratic in-state donors is weak and the rest of his in-state fundraising (primarily from the business community) may soon evaporate thanks to his waffling on EFCA.

New York, Washington D.C., and California provided Bennet nearly as many contributions as Colorado did. The graph below shows the source of Bennet’s first quarter haul:

PAC contributions to Bennet topped a quarter of a million dollars, which along with the massive out-of-state funding leads one to wonder just who exactly want Michael Bennet to be Colorado’s U.S. Senator.

Top sources of funding to Michael Bennet
Colorado – $509,810
PACs and other committees – $261,125
New York – $188,000
Washington DC – $136,958
California – $100,367
Maryland – $36,550
Massachusetts – $30,200

One thing is clear, Bennet’s Republican opponent will have to have a strong backing from in-state donors. Those donors aren’t going to just come out of no where, they are people like you reading this right now. The Democrats have figured out that in order to win elections they have to man up and give a few dollars, so please donate to Ryan Frazier or Ken Buck. Even if it is just $5 or $10 you can help send Michael Bennet a message that the people of Colorado do not want him in office.

Quote of the Day

by Ben DeGrow | 5:18 pm, May 18, 2009

Former state senate leader and former state treasurer Mark Hillman, in his column lambasting the arrogance behind Colorado Democrats’ Senate Bill 291, which would strip away state education funds from school districts that opt to reinstitute taxpayer protections:
This from the party that claims to do everything “for the children.” In reality, the Democrats do [...]

Independence Wants YOU for Colorado Transparency!

by Jon Caldara | 3:26 pm, May 18, 2009

I am really just starting to understand the power of government transparency.  A bill this last legislative session that would have placed school districts’ check book registers online was killed.  Keep in mind this information is all “open to public inspection” through the Colorado Open Records Act now, so why did school districts fight so [...]

Ask Governor Ritter to veto SB 241

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 1:33 pm, May 18, 2009

SB – 241, which mandates the use of force to take DNA from innocent citizens for a government database, passed the Colorado legislature this year. Unless Governor Bill Ritter vetoes it, it will become law. He may sign it at any time, so don’t dally in contacting his office.

Please call or email the governor’s office and ask him to veto the bill.  His number is (303) 866-2471. His staff logs the calls, so just let them know you want the governor to veto SB 241. 

To email him, you must use the email form on the Governor’s website. The directions are relatively simple, even for a government form.

You can even send a fax to (303) 866-2003. Don’t forget, of course, that one should always be polite.

Here is what I sent to him via the email form:

Subject: Veto SB 241

Governor Ritter:

Please protect the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” and veto this Orwellian expansion of government power over innocent citizens.

Of course, law and order is very important, but so is the concept of privacy, the Fourth Amendment, and the problem of government abuse of information and power.

Please protect the citizens and veto this bill.

Thank you for your time.

If the Federal Debt Could Be Imagined as a Map of the United States…

by Ben DeGrow | 11:58 am, May 18, 2009

Less than 3 minutes is all it takes for this excellent visual explanation of the rate of our mounting national debt (H/T Gene Kinsey):

Brought to you by the same guy who cleverly explained Barack Obama’s proposed spending “cuts” in terms of pennies and large containers of water. I hope he keeps these coming.
For the record, [...]

Vacation Return

by Mr. Bob | 9:09 am, May 18, 2009

#gop #hhrs #tcot
Back from a vacation/active duty/Hawaii visit. Yes, I got to go to Hawaii, on the Navy’s nickel because I worked while I was there, and yes it was awesome, see your Navy Recruiter.

I missed two of Steven Crowder’s weekly comedy videos whilst gone and should post them. The first one on National Prayer Day is priceless.

Crowder on the RedEye

Wrongfully jailed without recourse

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 9:08 am, May 18, 2009

In her Sunday Denver Post column, “Justice not on city’s to-do list,” Susan Greene lament’s the City of Denver’s incompetence.

Two Problems with Hate Crimes Laws

by Ryan | 6:59 am, May 18, 2009

A hate crimes bill has passed through the US House (H.R. 1913) and is now before the Senate (S. 909).  Basically, a hate crimes bill makes not only actions done against others criminal, but also the motives behind the actions.
The bill in question would make it an extra crime to commit crimes against people due [...]

The Climate Collaborators

by Rossputin | 1:34 am, May 18, 2009

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and socialist “climate adviser” Carol Browner recently met with members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), companies who are angling for “free” CO2 emission permits for themselves as part of a federal “cap and trade” scheme. Beyond the fact that “cap and trade” will have no relevant impact on climate, the process of designing the scheme is, as it must be, inherently corrupt. The Bloomberg article notes that “The free allowances may be worth as much as $40 billion a year…,” more than enough for those companies to spend their time and their campaign contributions trying to get a piece of the pie.

USCAP is described on their own web site as “a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

One of the leaders of the USCAP group is Duke Energy CEO, Jim Rogers, who turned into a “global warming” cheerleader in a transparent effort to curry political favor and financial advantage for his firm. But now that the plan is moving in a way he doesn’t quite like, including Budget Director Peter Orszag saying “You should anticipate no changes in our climate proposal”, Rogers is warning that the plan will lead to much higher electricity prices and, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, “‘a redistribution of wealth’ from Midwestern industrial states to coastal states.” This is the same Jim Rogers who said in late 2007 “We support federal legislation to address global climate change by putting a cap-and-trade system in place.”

I suppose Rogers forgot Dick Armey’s maxim that “If you make a deal with the devil, you are the junior partner.” You can be sure that Obama, Emanuel, and Browner haven’t forgotten.

For comparison, it’s worth reading a speech given by Utah energy company Questar’s CEO, Keith Rattie, who notes that “Any way you slice it, cap and trade is a tax on the way we live our lives – one designed to produce a windfall for government” and “When it comes to deciding how much energy gets used, what types of energy get used, and where, how and by whom energy gets used –that job is too important not to be left to markets.”

The blatant hypocrisy of some of the rent-seeking USCAP companies is impressive, if not surprising. Among current members of the group, at least these following companies were once members of the now-defunct Global Climate Coalition (“GCC”): British Petroleum (BP), Chrysler, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, DuPont, Ford, General Motors, and Shell.

The archived web page of the GCC described the group’s policy position: “It is imperative that climate policies focus on responsible voluntary actions…. Unrealistic targets and timetables, such as those called for under the Kyoto Protocol, are not achievable without severely harming the U.S. economy and all American families, workers, seniors and children.”

The GCC disbanded in 2002, although many companies had left it earlier. While the group’s end came in part because of the failure of the Kyoto Treaty to be ratified in the US (such failure having been one of the GCC’s laudable goals), there is no doubt that the changing public perception about “global warming” made many companies afraid of the bad PR which might come from being on the wrong side of the growing “global warming” hype.

So, USCAP was formed to grovel at the feet of Al Gore, his loyal minions in liberal media outlets and environmental organizations, and to pander to people who buy a Prius to save the planet (or at least feel guilty if they don’t.) USCAP moved quickly to insert themselves into the political debate, and are feverishly trying to ensure that they help set the rules of the “cap and trade” scheme for their benefit, at the expense of every American consumer and taxpayer.

Just what is that expense to the rest of us? While the Obama administration has put forward a cost estimate of $646 billion, the deputy director of the National Economic Council said the cost would more likely be “two-to-three times” that amount. As the Wall Street Journal notes, “This could mean the cap and trade system could actually generate between roughly $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion between fiscal years 2012 and 2019.” And that ignores the ripple effects of the scheme on the prices of essentially everything that Americans do and buy. We’re talking about something on the order of two trillion dollars out of our pockets in less than a decade in pursuit of both a Quixotic quest to alter climate and the left’s dream of having government exercise substantial control over nearly our entire economy.

Readers of these pages are more well-informed than the average American, but I’d wager that even a substantial percentage of you have at most a modest understanding of “cap and trade”. If that describes you, you’re not alone. In a newly released Rasmussen poll, only 24% of people surveyed knew that “cap and trade” had anything (even theoretically) to do with environmental regulation. Seventeen percent said it was related to health care reform and 29% to “regulatory reform on Wall Street.” As Rasmussen notes, “a plurality (30%) have no idea.”

Don’t think for a minute that public ignorance of the details of “cap and trade”, much less its basic definition, has not been well-explained to the public by Congressional Democrats and other anti-capitalists. Indeed, Democrats are even misleading each other about it, as pointed out in a recently-released memo from the non-partisan Office of Management and Budget which comments on the EPA’s “proposed findings” regarding climate change and regulation of carbon emissions.

Some highlights of the memo, the entire 9 pages of which is a must-read:

• “The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about basic facts surrounding (greenhouse gases) seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing for regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty.”

• Regarding the EPA’s desire to regulate CO2 because of “aeroallergens”: “It is unclear whether temperature effects will result in net mortality increases or decreases and the scientific literature does not provide definitive data or conclusions about aeroallergen impacts. Further, the impact of climates sensitive diseases may be minimal in a rich country like the US.”

• “To the extent that climate change alters our environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaptation that mitigate the damages from climate change. The document should note this possibility and how it affects the likely impacts of climate change.”

• “The finding could be strengthened by including additional information on benefits, costs, and risks (where this information exists); meeting appropriate standards for peer review; and accepted research protocols… The Finding should also acknowledge that EPA has not undertaken a systematic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis.” A stunning rebuke of the EPA’s slack methods for reaching a tremendously important policy conclusion.

• “(T)here is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on (1) ‘harm’ from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, (2) available scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources…” In other words, the Office of Management and Budget is accusing the EPA of basing a critical “finding” on propaganda fed to them by environmentalists and anti-capitalists rather than doing their own research.

The myths of “global warming” and of CO2 as a pollutant are already beginning to filter through the general public despite the Obama Administration’s desire to keep us poor and stupid. It’s just a question of whether rent-seeing corporations, anti-free-market politicians, and radical environmentalists are able to implement their economy-destroying “cap and trade” scheme before Americans know enough, and push back enough, to stop them.

And on a slightly more personal note:

If companies are going to use government to try to increase our tax bills and then steer that money to themselves, we should punish those companies to the best of our abilities. Yes, they may have the dominant liberal mass media and too much of the political class with them for now, but I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ statement that “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

It is with this inspiration that I urge consumers to boycott products made and sold by companies which are members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (“USCAP”). Some of these companies are hard to avoid, but let’s do our best to show them that good PR isn’t found only in backing Al Gore’s self-serving lies. Here’s the list of the anti-capitalist corporate climate-conspiracy collaborators:

Alcoa, Boston Scientific Corporation, BP America Inc., Caterpillar Inc., Chrysler LLC, ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, Exelon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, FPL Group, Inc., General Electric, General Motors Corp., Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, Inc., NRG Energy, Inc., PepsiCo, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens Corporation, Xerox Corporation.

Ritter vetoes bipartisan Gun Check simplification bill, putting politically correct pandering ahead of 2nd Amendment rights

by Captain Arapahoe | 11:30 pm, May 17, 2009

Governor Bill Ritter announced the veto of House Bill 1180, passed with a strong bipartisan majority (including 19 Democrats), “which would have allowed law-abiding gun owners to purchase firearms without jumping through hoops and waiting for additional criminal background checks” late Friday afternoon.  In what is becoming a pattern for “Backdoor Bill” Ritter, his veto [...]

No Property, No Freedom

by Ari Armstrong | 10:53 pm, May 17, 2009

I continue to enjoy Catherine Drinker Bowen’s Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May to September 1787. Following are just a couple of intriguing passages:

Stephen Hopkins, arguing from Rhode Island against the proposed stamp tax in the year 1764, had announced that “they who have no property can have no freedom.” The famed Massachusetts Circular Letter of 1768 had declared it “an essential, unalterable Right, in nature… ever held sacred and irrevocable… that what a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his own.” (page 71)

[Reflecting on George Washington's sentiments:] These meetings would determine whether America was to have a government which guaranteed life, liberty and property, or whether the country was to drift into anarchy, confusion and the dictation of “some aspiring demagogue.” (page 77)

How far we have fallen.

Or, in the half-full interpretation, how great is our opportunity to renew our founding ideals!

Don’t raise taxes, legalize marijuana

by Brian T. Schwartz | 8:12 pm, May 17, 2009

The Boulder Daily Camera published my short piece on why the city should not raise taxes.  Also check out (in the comments) Seth Brigham’s open records research on how the City of Boulder spends money.
The city should cut its spending — just families, nonprofits, and companies have in response to …

Upcoming Events–May 2009 Edition (Continuously Updated)

by elpresidente | 11:46 am, May 17, 2009

Motorhome Diaries Guys Arrested!

by Ari Armstrong | 11:19 pm, May 15, 2009

Three guys are traveling the country in a motorhome to report on the liberty movement and support it. Jennifer and I met them and had a nice chat with them a few weeks ago in Denver at Liberty On the Rocks.

I was disturbed to hear this morning that they had been arrested in Mississippi. Now that they have been released from jail, they have recounted the details on their blog, “Jones County Sheriff’s Department Falsely Arrests MHD Crew.”

This story makes me angry. These cops acted little better than common street thugs. Shame on the Jones Country Sheriff’s Department.

Notably, the officers in question abused these travelers’ civil rights on the pretext of the drug war.

Memo to the police: your job is to protect individual rights, not violate them. Memo to legislators: when you empower the police with rights-violating laws and arbitrary powers, we end up with a police state. The fact that most of us (or at least most of us with obvious resource and the “right” skin color) never personally suffer such abuses should not blind us to the creeping police state unfolding before us.

Colorado Supreme Court clears the way for future abuses of Eminent Domain power for property seizures in Colorado

by CTBC Director | 11:00 pm, May 15, 2009

At a recent event in Golden, Colorado (at the Independence Institute) a panel of experts discussed the state of individual property rights in the face of mounting attacks by government entities abusing the power of eminent domain to seize land and other holdings for a variety of “public interest” reasons.
According to the findings of their recent publication, “From New [...]

Because Fighting the Police State is ALWAYS a Good Cause

by Joss Armstrong | 7:26 pm, May 15, 2009

So, if you didn’t know, the gents over at TheMotorhomeDiaries.com were arrested and landed in jail yesterday morning. Why? For filming a traffic stop.  Miscreant bastards.  Oh, wait, that’s not against the law. . . it’s just what was being done when the police took an extraordinary and unprecedented interest in the three. Jason was [...]

PJ on Antitrust

by Ari Armstrong | 5:53 pm, May 15, 2009

Recently I argued briefly against the Obama administration’s threat to beef up antitrust persecution.

Now Pajamas Media has offered an outstanding video, “Obama Administration Cracking Down On Monopolies.” Both Terry Jones of Investor’s Business Daily and Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute do a fantastic job summarizing the flaws and destruction of the antitrust laws. If you are one of those “conservatives” who advocates central political control of this economy in this area, it is past time for you to reevaluate your views.

Public-Sector Unions vs. Taxpayers: Timely Lesson for Governor Bill Ritter

by Ben DeGrow | 2:52 pm, May 15, 2009

Quick post, but an important read for a Friday: As clearly and as effectively as I’ve seen done, Steven Malanga’s Wall Street Journal column explains the negative impact of public-sector union strength on the well-being of taxpayers. (H/T Labor Pains)
Read it.
Maybe it will help clarify the reasons why Governor Bill Ritter ought to veto Senate [...]

ABNA: So Much for the Novel Contest

by T.L. James | 10:43 am, May 15, 2009

For those of you who know about the book:  it made it into the top 100, but Labyrinth of Night didn’t make the cut to the final three.
Ah well. Back to looking for an agent the old-fashioned way.

Friday’s Funny

by Jon Caldara | 9:59 am, May 15, 2009

© 2008, Benjamin Hummel. To see more cartoons like this go to www.politixcartoons.com.

Cast Vote for Best Slogan to Describe Government Borrow-and-Spend Habits

by Ben DeGrow | 9:29 am, May 15, 2009

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is concluding its Stop Spending Our Future “Give It a Name” contest with the chance for you to vote on which of the five finalists best conveys “the threat of government over-spending and/or excessive debt using 10 words or less”.
While you’re there casting your vote, you can also sign the [...]

« 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