Dems brainwashed into fearing political violence

by Rossputin | 2:12 am, September 24, 2009

Perhaps the ultimate expression of the liberal echo chamber and the current utter disconnect between Democrats and the rest of American society was reflected in a Rasmussen Reports poll released on Tuesday.

The main topic of the poll, voter anger with current federal government policies, was interesting enough, with 90% of Republicans “at least somewhat angry” versus 44% of Democrats. In an ominous sign for Democratic electoral prospects during the next two election seasons, 77% of independent voters were also at least somewhat angry with federal government policies. More than 70% of Republican and independent voters surveyed “say neither party has the answers”, showing that the GOP has plenty of work to do to motivate voters and convince us that there’s some positive reason to vote Republican. (For some voters, a candidate’s just not being a Democrat might be enough – as the converse was certainly enough in 2008 – but that’s generally a thin reed on which to tie your electoral hopes.)

Beyond the interesting implications of those numbers, however, a sub-section of the same poll was truly stunning, even for this jaded observer of politicians and the electorate: The question was “How concerned are you that those opposed to President Obama’s policies will resort to violence?”

Of course, we’ve all heard about Nancy Pelosi demonizing Tea Party participants and MSNBC anchors bemoaning white gun-toting racists (while they knowingly cropped the TV image to hide the fact that the legally armed citizen was black). Apparently the Pelosi-Goebbels strategy, i.e. tell a very big lie and tell it very often, is working:

According to the poll, “Forty-three percent (43%) of voters nationwide are at least somewhat concerned that the political anger will spill over into violence, as some politicians have suggested. Twenty-two percent (22%) are Very Concerned.” But as paranoid as that number sounds, let’s dig a little deeper:

“Sixty-three percent (63%) of Democrats are worried about the threat of political violence, while 71% of Republicans are not concerned. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 63% are not concerned.”

Yes, 63% of Democrats surveyed believe that political violence is a real worry. And since it’s difficult to imagine Democrats (particularly the “likely voters” surveyed by Rasmussen) acting any more aggressively than putting an extra pack of Splenda in their lattes or beeping the tiny horns of their Toyota Pious hybrids, it’s clear that Democrats are afraid of Republicans and libertarian-minded independents. (After all, it’s not the Democrats who have the guns, right?)

Yet the very people whom the liberal media have trained their sheep to fear are by a large majority not concerned. One would think that if there were a part of the population likely to cause violence, they’d be the ones most prone to believing that violence is likely.

In an era of extreme political polarization (by American standards, if not by the standards of most other nations), we have reached a new low. Democrats think non-Democrats are soon to begin actual physical violence where most non-Democrats clearly never even had the thought cross their minds.

Indeed, all the political violence I’ve heard of in recent weeks has been perpetrated by Democrats, such as the union thugs beating up a black town hall protestor in Missouri and a so-called “healthcare reform activist” who bit off the tip of the finger of a counter-protester at a MoveOn.org rally in California.

The cognitive dissonance of the left is on the one hand remarkable but on the other hand understandable. It would seem implausible for large numbers of people to believe that political violence is likely, in part because that’s simply not how Americans normally operate and in part because other than Timothy McVeigh (idiot, murderer, rotting in hell) there’s been no evidence of violent tendencies among those whom the Democrats actually fear. Furthermore, there has not been widespread political violence by Republicans in this country, but there has been widespread violence by Democrats, most recently the Los Angeles riots in 1992 and in the various big city riots twenty-five years earlier. But, when all you read are liberal newspapers and all you watch are liberal television stations, you are so bombarded with the message that non-Democrats are hateful, racist, and likely to shoot you that Democrats actually come to believe it to some degree.

Not since FDR has the United States government participated in such a massive propaganda effort, aimed at demonizing all who disagree with it. The White House press secretary characterizes Tea Parties as organized by a fiendish right-wing cabal, whereas it’s actually the left-wing protests which are highly organized by unions and other leftist organizations. Obama hires a “Diversity Czar” to tell us that heterosexual whites should quit upper level jobs in media so that blacks and gays can “have a chance.” Disgraced activist Van Jones calls Republicans “assholes.” And the media goes along with most of it.

It’s no wonder Democrats are confused.

But here’s what concerns me: It stands to reason that people who are afraid that their opposition is prone to violence (even if that fear is unfounded) are themselves more likely to act violently. Even if it never gets to violence, people who believe their opposition is unstable enough to resort to violence are far less likely to have a rational conversation with that opposition. As long as the media and the government are working together to make non-Democrats seem like marionettes of a lunatic puppet-master, reaching an understanding among the American people will be impossible.

And why would the government want an understanding to be impossible? Because they fear that the arguments of those who oppose this government’s policy aims would be more persuasive than their own arguments. One good barometer of this is the way that independent voters have so rapidly turned negative on their assessment of Barack Obama’s job performance. It’s true that many Democrats will blindly support Obama just as many Republicans blindly supported Bush, but independent voters are a far more objective indicator, not least since they voted in large majority for Obama. But even within both major parties there are people who actually pay attention to principles and results rather than the D or R attached to a politician’s name. And for the Administration and the media which has invested in it, the possibility of those Democrats having a real conversation with people who understand the true nature of Obama’s policies is a chance they just can’t take.

And now we know how you keep Democrats from reaching out to, or attempting to understand, non-Democrats: Make the Democrats think the non-Democrats want to kill them.

I ask you: What has this nation come to when almost 2/3 of this nation’s largest political party believes that political violence is likely, while almost 3/4 of the other party doesn’t? Is it insanity? Is it dangerous? And maybe most importantly, is it intentional?

 

Death by lack of insurance: statistical trickery

by Linda Gorman | 1:30 am, September 24, 2009

If past cycles are any indicator, we are about due for another round of studies showing that being uninsured kills. Headlines will abound, commentators will wring their hands, and anyone who opposes ObamaCare will be portrayed as an insensitive killer.
The good news is that the majority of the supposed deaths due to a lack of [...]

Prominent State Democrat endorses Romanoff for Senate

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 2:20 pm, September 23, 2009

State Senator Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora) just sent an email out to her subscribers endorsing former Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff in his primary bid for U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Michael Bennet.

Bennet may have the national support (and money), but Romanoff’s local support is impressive.

Senator Carroll’s email:

============================================

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

I am writing to you today to let you know that I am proud to endorse Andrew Romanoff in the race for United States Senate. Some of you know that I had the honor of serving with Speaker Andrew Romanoff for 4 years in the Colorado House.

Andrew has worked tirelessly to deliver our state from the brink of bankruptcy (Ref C), to repair and replace aging school buildings in Colorado (BEST), to give remedy to patients who have had health care claims wrongly delayed or denied. He has been firm on the side of civil, constitutional and human rights at every turn.

Even in some of the hardest and most controversial times, Andrew insisted on human decency and courtesy and could diffuse even the most explosive situations with his wit and focus on substance.

Andrew is a dedicated public servant who has an exceptional grasp of a wide range of public policy issues and an unparalleled ability to work with others to get important problems solved. I think he has the right vision for the future of Colorado and the right leadership skills to get us there.

Primaries can be difficult. Sen. Michael Bennet is also a very smart and committed public servant. Colorado would be well represented with either of these men in the Senate.

To serve with Andrew is to see him in action. I feel honored to have served with someone who is so capable of putting the public interest above all else. We need those skills now more than ever.

If you feel as I do, please consider donating to or volunteering for Andrew by visiting: http://www.andrewromanoff.com/.

Yours truly,

Morgan Carroll

My Ideal Health Insurance Policy

by Ari Armstrong | 1:54 pm, September 23, 2009

Right now my wife and I pay $148 per month for high-deductible health insurance through Assurant. Our rate is locked in for three years.

I was just talking with an insurance broker in Boulder, and he mentioned that a three-year policy is actually unusually long. Usually one must renew every single year.

As my dad and I have discussed, various political controls have effectively outlawed long-term policies.

Of course it’s difficult to predict precisely what products and services would become available on a free market. However, I have a good idea of what sort of insurance policy I’d like to buy.

Let’s start with some basic facts.

1. Real insurance (as opposed to today’s politically mangled health insurance) covers unexpected, high-cost treatments, not routine or expected care.

2. As one gets older, the risks of contracting a serious, high-cost disease approaches 100 percent, and this risk (on average) increases dramatically over the age of about 60. As one clever visual illustrates, one’s lifetime odds of dying of heart disease are one in five, and the odds of dying of cancer are one in seven. Stroke is the third greatest risk, and then risks splinter quickly into many competing factors. See also the charts (page 5) from National Vital Statistics showing “percent surviving by age.”

The upshot is that, in old age, the risk of high-cost care goes up dramatically. At that point, treatment is more or less expected, so medicine becomes increasingly less insurable. On the other hand, in one’s youth and middle age, routine care is the norm and high-cost emergencies are relatively rare, which is a great scenario for insurance.

What I’d like to do, then, is purchase a term health policy with a locked in rate till I’m about 60. I’d like the deductible to start high — around $10,000 annually — and increase every year until it reached about $50,000. The increasing deductible should enable rates to remain low even though health risks will increase somewhat over time.

So what happens when the term health policy ends? The point is to pay a low insurance premium and then save money to pay for care when I get old. Just to take an illustrative example, if you’re 35 years old and you buy term health until you’re 60, that gives you 25 years to save for old-age medical expenses. Let’s say a high-deductible premium costs $100 per month, whereas a “pre-paid health care” premium costs $500 per month. Let’s further say you pay $100 per month four routine care. That gives you $300 per month to save, which adds up to over $200,000 at 6.5 percent interest. I think it would make sense to save somewhat more than that.

If the sort of insurance I’m describing became widespread (as could only happen if politicians stopped completely mucking up the insurance market), one consequence would be that the large majority of health expenses would be paid directly by patients. This would put patients back in control of their medical care, and it would give patients the incentive to stay healthy and look for good value for their health-related dollars. This would keep health costs under control while achieving good quality. Which is why most politicians won’t even consider allowing it to happen.

Wednesday Wrap-Up

by Jon Caldara | 11:59 am, September 23, 2009

***The center-right is justly opposing Obama Care; the tremendously successful tea party movement is evidence of this, as they have been overwhelmingly anti-government takeover of health care. However, I suspect that there is a percentage of protesters and opposition who would be less fervently against Obama Care if it weren’t Obama and the Democrats [...]

R Block Party meeting Thursday, Sept. 24th

by Nikki | 11:03 am, September 23, 2009

Please Join R Block Party for New Kids on the Block II THE IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL ELECTIONS “All Politics Is Local ” ~ This is where we start ~ Building the Bench from the grassroots up! Join us for an opportunity to meet and mingle with City, County and State Candidates ************************************ Updated Candidate List [...]

Quote of the Day – Michael Moore and his love of capitalism

by Mr. Bob | 10:26 am, September 23, 2009

#tcot #redco #teaparty

From Mark Hemmingway of NRO

Anti-Capitalist Filmmaker Enjoys Vulgar Displays of Wealth [Mark Hemingway]

Last night Esquire threw a party for Michael Moore’s new documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, which all about the vulgar displays of income inequality in this country and how Americans are suffering as a result of the recession. Then according to one person who attended the premiere, this happened:

Following the Premiere, Esquire shuttles many of the attendees straight down to SoHo to the opening of The Esquire Apartment – a fully decadent penthouse where every square inch is paid for by a luxury sponsor. Hot tub, $120k pool table, $60k home theater, fine food. The only thing lacking was a doormat saying “Welcome To Capitalism.”

I had fun….But ooooh the irony. Everyone I talked to was like, “man, this is the most bizarre combination. I bet Michael Moore would freak out if he saw that this was happening.”….And then he showed up. And was eating it up. And then one of the families from the film came. SOURCE

Boulder Teachers Prepare to Walk Over Strike Precipice … For What Now?

by Ben DeGrow | 10:16 am, September 23, 2009

Update, 1:40 PM: Westword’s Michael Roberts notes that the Boulder Valley Education Association president is sending different messages about the possibility of a strike to members and the media.
(H/T Complete Colorado) The Daily Camera reports today that the Boulder Valley Education Association has filed official notice of the intent to strike. Which doesn’t necessarily mean [...]

Barack Obama, College Administrator – VDH

by Mr. Bob | 10:05 am, September 23, 2009

#tcot #teaparty #redco #obama #vdh
Independent thinker and conservative intellectual Victor Davis Hanson has the read of the morning over at NRO.

some excerpts;

If you are confused by the first nine months of the Obama administration, take solace that there is at least a pattern. The president, you see, thinks America is a university and that he is our campus president. Keep that in mind, and almost everything else makes sense.

….. In the world of the university, a Van Jones — fake name, fake accent, fake underclass pedigree, fake almost everything — is a dime a dozen. Ward Churchill fabricated everything from his degree to his ancestry, and was given tenure, high pay, and awards for his beads, buckskin, and Native American–like locks. The “authentic” outbursts of Van Jones about white polluters and white mass-murderers are standard campus fare. In universities, such over-the-top rhetoric and pseudo-Marxist histrionics are simply career moves, used to scare timid academics and win release time, faculty-adjudicated grants, or exemption from normal tenure scrutiny. Skip Gates’s fussy little theatrical fit at a Middle American was not his first and will not be his last.

Obama did not vet Jones before hiring him because he saw nothing unusual (much less offensive) about him, READ THE REST

Penry Sweeps Latest GOP Activist Survey, Prompts Angry Response From McInnis Campaign

by RMR | 8:46 am, September 23, 2009

Josh Penry leapt ahead in the latest detailed survey of 500 GOP activists conducted by Ben DeGrow. This prompted the McInnis campaign to issue a predictably thin-skinned response to the Denver Westword:

"Rasmussen is a heck of a bigger deal than Ben DeGrow," Duffy says, adding that internal numbers he can’t make public at this point reveal "that we’re way ahead." Besides, the positive Penry numbers hardly "came down from Mt. Sinai carved into tablets."

Of course, Rasmussen didn’t actually poll the primary which makes it an odd point to bring up. There was little accomplished by this latest incident aside from drawing attention to the survey itself, cementing the McInnis campaign’s emerging reputation as hyperventilating at any perceived slight, and agitating the conservative blogosphere (who any candidate will probably want on their side should they get the nomination).

Furthermore, bringing up "internal numbers that he can’t make public" probably isn’t the brightest idea in light of  evidence brought to light earlier this year that suggests McInnis was essentially side-stepping campaign finance laws to conduct polling. Not to mention this gem quoted in the Denver Post article at the time that attempted to explain away his reference to "extensive polling":

"I haven’t paid for polling. I try to go on websites and places like that and take a look at those polls."

 

Will doctors quit in response to Democrats’ health reform?

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, September 23, 2009

Writes Paul Hsieh, MD:
In a recent editorial published by Investor’s Business Daily, associate editor (and PJTV.com regular) Terry Jones revealed stunning poll data showing that 45 percent of American physicians “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement” if Congress passed the proposed ObamaCare health legislation.
As a practicing physician, I’m not surprised. These [...]

Will Michael Bennet go along with the assault on Colorado’s energy and tech industries?

by Rossputin | 1:06 am, September 23, 2009

As Democrats renew their push for energy taxes in the name of the Cult of Global Warming, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, a man who believes we can fight global warming by all painting our roofs white (seriously, he does), is telling Americans that we’re acting like “unruly teenagers” in our opposition to the economy-crushing prospects of cap-and-trade.

But it’s not just the Waxman-Markey bill which threatens America’s future ability to be less dependent on imports for our energy. Tax provisions in the Obama Administration’s 2010 budget proposal are a large caliber weapon aimed out our real energy industry (as opposed to the minuscule production of all “green” energy sources combined.)

The administration wants to change the ability of corporations to defer income tax on income earned overseas until the money is brought back into the country. For large US energy producers with overseas operations, this will lower their overall return on capital and leave them with less money available for exploration and other R&D. (This particular change is likely to be even worse for technology companies, of which Colorado has many, than for energy companies.)

Beyond this enormous and destructive change (even the left-leaning Atlantic magazine recognizes the threat it poses), there are several other tax hikes aimed directly at energy companies, some of which will be so expensive that they must cause an increase in US energy prices and a decrease in domestic exploration.

Of these, here are a few of the biggest:

• Repealing the expensing of intangible drilling costs. This ability has been in place in our tax code since 1913. According to the American Petroleum Institute’s analysis of the various energy tax hikes being proposed by Obama, “Intangible drilling costs generally include cost items that have no salvage value, but are necessary for the drilling of exploratory wells or the development of wells for production.” API estimates this tax increase to take nearly $2 billion out of the energy sector over just the first 5 years.
• Repealing the manufacturing tax deduction which was put in place in 2004 for the purpose of boosting domestic employment. While there is an argument to be made that energy employment is not as highly affected by tax rates as employment in other more traditional manufacturing industries, this tax change is nevertheless expected to cost the industry $5 billion…money which they could be using to make America energy-independent, or at least less dependent.
• Repealing the percentage depletion allowance, similar to depreciation for other businesses. This change is particularly damaging to Colorado because it currently applies only to production by independent American producers, and is most relevant to smaller producers because of the provision’s structure. If there is one provision which is targeted at the energy industry’s version of “small business”, it’s this one…and it’s expected to cost the industry almost $3 billion between 2010 and 2014.

To be fair, one can argue that these provisions were loopholes for the energy industry and I am no supporter of corporate welfare. However, the first and last of these three bullet points discuss the repeal of provisions which strike me as reasonable and with analogues in other businesses.

And again, the repeal of the ability to defer income tax on foreign-earned income is an economic disaster in the making.

In combination, the Administration’s proposals regarding the taxation of energy and the energy industry could only have been designed by people who hate the extremely efficient energy sources of oil and coal (and, of course, nuclear power), and who love wind turbines and solar panels even though they don’t and can’t produce even a decent single digit percentage of our energy needs. In short, these rules could only have been proposed by people who hate or don’t understand economics…and of course, if you look at the Democratic leadership in Congress and at Obama’s energy advisors (all of whom are radical environmentalists), that’s exactly what’s happened.

With Colorado’s having a large energy industry (though not as large as it used to be, in large part due to the anti-energy policies of Governor Bill Ritter), one has to wonder how our senators, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, will vote on bills that include these provisions. Bennet, in particular, with an election looming in just over a year and without the long history of environmental activism that Udall has (especially with his far-left activist wife), is a question mark.

Will he side with a president who has exactly zero experience working in the private sector? Will he side with a governor whose energy policies are among the worst in the nation? Or will he side with the people and companies who bring jobs, tax revenue, and energy supply to our state? As I said before, it’s not just energy, but also technology, which will be broadsided by the income deferral and other tax provisions proposed by the administration. With Colorado’s unemployment rate having reached a more than twenty year high in July (followed by a modest improvement in August), will Michael Bennet (affectionately dubbed “Senator Who” by some) vote the way the out-of-touch elites and radical environmentalists want him to, or will he – for once – stand up for common sense and the well-being of Colorado and Coloradoans?

“Soulless functionaries” and your health.

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 11:05 pm, September 22, 2009

In her Sunday Denver Post column, “Uncool to ticket a dead man,” Susan Greene bemoans the “soulless functionaries” in the bureaucracy that have harassed a widow over her deceased husband’s failure to renew his car registration. Ms. Greene is absolutely correct to bemoan the state’s conduct.

The “soulless functionaries” of the state are not supposed to think critically. They follow the rules. They enforce the regulations. They shuffle the paper. They are not required to think about it. Indeed, they are discouraged from thinking about it. If they thought about their conduct, they would apply the rules one way under one set of circumstances and another way under a different set. They would have discretion.

“Soulless functionaries” with discretion would result in disparate treatment. For instance, a dead man’s widow would be treated differently than a scofflaw deliberately ignoring the requirement to keep his car registration current. The state can not have that. It requires thinking.

Greene’s “soulless functionaries” are not limited to just one area of government. They permeate it. Many, however, fail to understand this.

Those that believe the government should take over health care fail to make the connection that it is these same “soulless functionaries” that will be shuffling the paper for your medical needs. They will have no discretion. They will not be allowed to think.

They will follow the rules. They will enforce the regulations. They will shuffle the paper. They will function without souls. And they will do it in triplicate.

Does it not defy logic to think that these “soulless functionaries” will be kept out of the health care bureauracy? That somehow benevolent angels will replace them? Where will these angels come from and why are not they already in government?

How is it that some have the ability to recognize that the inherent culture of government necessarily creates soulless functionaries, but somehow think it possible that the culture will be different in a separate wing of the same government building?

Hard to Overlook: Obama’s Glaring Broken Promise on Bill Transparency

by Ben DeGrow | 11:00 pm, September 22, 2009

It’s very hard for the online political activist, much less the average citizen, to keep track of all the Obama deceptions and misdirections. And what about the broken promises? You know, like the pledge to post all bills online for five days for the public to read before the President signed anything.
Well, the Cato Institute’s [...]

“Does Obama lie?”

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 2:11 pm, September 22, 2009

An excellent column by the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer

An excerpt:

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.

.

Crowder on Campus – UC Berkeley

by Mr. Bob | 2:07 pm, September 22, 2009

#tcot #redco #comedy

“Rasmussen is a heck of a bigger deal than Ben DeGrow”

by Ben DeGrow | 11:44 am, September 22, 2009

Westword blogger Michael Roberts reports on the results of our survey of Colorado’s political temperature released yesterday.
The flattering comparison that titles the post, which comes from Scott McInnis for Governor spokesman Sean Duffy, now adorns my “Who Writes This Blog?” page. After all, fame is fleeting….
For the latest and greatest comprehensive polling data out there, [...]

The Incoherence of Obama Care

by Ben DeGrow | 6:49 am, September 22, 2009

When Wolf Blitzer from liberal CNN grasps the simple concept of health care competition and deregulation and White House adviser trips all over himself trying to explain how up is down, isn’t it clear that Obama Care is incoherent? And isn’t it obvious why the President’s program to add more political controls to medicine is [...]

Net Neutrality is theft

by Rossputin | 1:50 am, September 22, 2009

In an article for the Associated Press, reporter Daniel Lovering describes soon-to-be-proposed rules on “Net Neutrality” as “prohibit(ing) Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks.”

The cries of “interference” are standard rhetoric from those who support regulation of the Internet, intentionally ignoring the fact that Internet infrastructure isn’t free. The very term, “neutrality”, is a nice-sounding but intentionally misleading description of the policy. Would you call a policy “neutral” by which a customer could walk into a store and demand a service or product that is expensive for the store to provide at the same price as some service or product that is cheaper to provide?

This so-called “interference” is little difference from people in front-row seats at the stadium paying more than those in the 50^th row or from large trucks being charged more at the highway toll booth than passenger cars are. It is not only normal, but necessary, for companies to manage demand for their products and recover costs of providing those products with tiered pricing.

Currently, ISPs can slow or block certain types of content, such as file transfers which use peer-to-peer software. According to the Heritage Foundation, “such (peer-to-peer) networks are used by about 5 percent of Internet users, but consume as much as 70 percent of broadband capacity.” Since bandwidth is a finite resource, overuse of bandwidth can slow or cripple Internet access for the rest of the ISPs customers.

ISPs like Comcast and AT&T spend billions of dollars building network infrastructure. “Net Neutrality” advocates are essentially arguing that anybody should be able to use as much of that infrastructure’s capacity as they want to without any additional cost for being a “bandwidth pig.” The ISPs want to be able to charge more to firms which are using more of their infrastructure. And why shouldn’t they be able to?

Once-capitalistic firms like Google, Amazon, and eBay which are increasing their offerings of high-bandwidth product, like movies and music, are trying to use government to keep them from paying their fair toll on the Internet.

There are only two likely outcomes from FCC regulations designed to allow so-called “Neutrality”: First, broadband prices will rise. (A Financial Times report last year said “Broadband prices could rise by up to one-third if regulators in Europe insist on strict “net neutrality” rules…” And second, as happened with other major industrial regulation of the past century, the rules will stifle competition and harm consumers.

The AP article also notes that “the proposals would uphold a pledge Barack Obama made during the presidential campaign.” Anyone want to guess where most of Google’s campaign contributions went? One FCC commissioner argues that “Net Neutrality” is the camel’s nose under the tent regarding government regulation of Internet content and may be intertwined with an attempted reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine. Perhaps it should be no surprise that two such Orwellian-named policies would be supported by the same people.

Moral obligation?

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 3:12 pm, September 21, 2009

According to the Denver Daily News, Denver City Councilwoman Judy Montero does not want to see a library in her district close. Mayor John Hickenlooper plans on closing the library in response to the city’s budget shortfall.

September 2009 Colorado’s Political Temperature Results

by Mr. Bob | 11:53 am, September 21, 2009

#redco #tcot #gop #colorado #penry
THE RESULTS ARE in from Colorado’s Political Temperature Survey.
From Mount Virtus

Introducing the top-line results from the 2nd edition of the survey of Colorado’s political temperature. Exactly 500 people participated in the project. Thanks to those of you who took the time to help out!

Coming later in the week will be an analysis of some key crosstabs and correlations. But for now here’s a quick rundown of the survey’s top-line results;

READ THE REPORT

Gazette: Obama’s Republican Health Plan

by Ari Armstrong | 9:44 am, September 21, 2009

Today’s Colorado Springs Gazette published my op-ed, “Republican plans for health care reform similar to Obamacare.” (The print date is later than the online date of September 18).

I point out that the three core tenets of Obama’s plan — mandatory insurance, forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions (and meet other political demands), and expanded subsidies — have all been endorsed by Republicans.

Meanwhile, the “public option” isn’t a central element of Obama’s plan, as the other controls alone effectively nationalize the insurance industry. (And, as John Lott suggests via Brian Schwartz, something like the “public option” already dominates the insurance industry.)

Read the entire op-ed. And share it with your Republican friends!

Survey Results: Penry Surges Ahead, 3-Way Struggle in U.S. Senate Primary

by Ben DeGrow | 7:24 am, September 21, 2009

Introducing the top-line results from the 2nd edition of the survey of Colorado’s political temperature. Exactly 500 people participated in the project. Thanks to those of you who took the time to help out! Coming later in the week will be an analysis of some key crosstabs and correlations. But for now here’s a quick [...]

Who is this guy? (Obama vs. the Constitution)

by Rossputin | 2:50 am, September 21, 2009

With every passing Barack Obama sermon, I become more and more convinced that the country made an enormous mistake electing a man who is on a permanent campaign (or maybe just permanently “community organizing”), who misunderstands the constitution and the role of the president, and who has no conception that other people’s money is other people’s money.

Obama spoke at the University of Maryland on Thursday. I heard part of the speech on the news, so I decided to find the whole thing online. For the sake of informing you, dear reader, I put myself through the torture of listening to it.  There is so much to find objectionable that I can’t begin to cover it all, but I’ll offer you thoughts about our Organizer-in-Chief, with some emphasis on the health care discussion, since that was Obama’s primary issue of the speech, the major issue of the day, and quite likely to define Obama’s career as president. (His one term career, I hope.)

Early in the speech, Obama says “There are still those in Washington who are resistant to change.” Besides being the classic rhetoric of statists of all stripes, from the Progressives to Nazis to Leninists, Obama’s statement, in addition to being untrue, begs the question of whether change, at least in the way Obama means it, is a good thing.  Opposing bad change is certainly not the same as opposing any and all change just for the sake of doing so.  But that’s what Obama wants you to believe.

Actually, his statement reminded me more than anything of the Borg characters from Star Trek – Next Generation, who walked around telling humans who were fighting back that they “will be assimilated” and that “resistance is futile.”  If you could look at Barack Obama’s political soul, it might look something like this:

 

 

Obama said these same people are more interested in protecting the status quo than in addressing problems, getting a chorus of sympathic “boos” from the sycophantic college crowd.  Again, that’s simply untrue.  I don’t know of anybody opposing Obamacare who thinks that the current health care system isn’t in need of substantial reform; we just don’t want his big-government version of “reform” which would and must make problems worse rather than better, not to mention the fact that it’s unconstitutional.

Someone in the crowd yelled “We love you, Obama”.  Obama said “I love you back.”  Who is this guy? Must be a community organizer cum cult leader.  He couldn’t really be the President of the United States, could he?

Obama then moves to health care directly, calling it a “defining struggle”, again language straight out of Marx and Hitler.

He starts in with the scare tactics: “Every day, one in three young adults is one accident or one illness away from bankruptcy.”  Ummmm….so what.  One in three young adults has a net worth not significantly different from zero.  But they have parents who support them when necessary.  Most “young adults” end up paying for their health care and are not free riders on the system.  Furthermore, most young adults do not have very expensive health issues.  And finally, most auto insurance covers health care for injuries incurred during an automobile accident.

He gave a few horror stories about people who were treated badly by insurance companies (including at least one story that has already been at least partially debunked), and then had the temerity to say “Too many engage in scare tactics instead of honest debates.”  Are you kidding me?

He spews a lot more misinformation and misdirection as has been the wont of Democrats these days, including the lie that the majority of doctors and nurses support his socialist/fascist plan. But a lot has already been written about the nuts and bolts of the health care debate by me and by others, so I won’t dwell on it further in this note.  Instead, I want to talk about Obama’s apparent and very troubling underlying philosophy and distinctly non-presidential style.

After several minutes of his usual overworn stump speech on health care, he begins his community organizing:

“That’s why I need your help. When I was running for President, I never said change would be easy. Change is hard. It’s always been hard. Civil rights was hard. Getting women the right to vote, that was hard… That’s how Americans are, we refuse to stand still. We always want to move forward. And that journey doesn’t take – that doesn’t start in Washington, D.C. It begins right here in College Park. It begins on campuses like this one. It always has. Just like the change that began in our campaign, it starts with people – especially young people – who are determined to take this nation’s destiny into their own hands.”

Just as I noted regarding Obama’s speech to young American students, it is standard fare among revolutionaries to mobilize and propagandize the youth. What Obama did yesterday at the University of Maryland was no different, and it was entirely in keeping with the statists’ cry for “progress”, which inevitably means progress toward government control and away from liberty. But Obama was just warming up…

He spends the next several minutes discussing his campaign chant: “Fired Up” which is to be followed by a sycophantic “Ready to go!”  I was going to put the transcript of the last couple of minutes of Obama’s talk here, but I think a video clip gives a clearer understanding.

Watch this carefully:

Change the world?  Transform this nation? Who is this guy?  The role of the president is not to do these things, not to spend speech after speech, TV appearance after TV appearance, day after day, trying to foment a gentle version of a revolution. The role of the president is to live up to his oath of office “to protect and defend the Constitution” , not to treat the oath as a small stumbling block on his race down the road to serfdom.

Maybe I should cut Obama a break here.  After all, the oath requires that the president protect and defend the Constitution “to the best of (his) ability”.  If his ability is almost none, then maybe we can’t blame him for attacking the Constitution rather than defending it.  But that doesn’t mean we need to support him or avoid criticizing him for such behavior.  And it doesn’t mean that his race is a fair defense against his anti-capitalist, anti-American rhetoric and ideas. Americans should learn from their mistakes and elect as strong a counter-balance as possible, as soon as possible, to this Manchurian Candidate.  To me, Obama’s actions and positions are the same ones that a Soviet agent during the Cold War would take, and the same ones that enemies of our nation would take today – particularly economic enemies.  We’re not talking about killing the US with nuclear weapons. We’re talking about killing it with a government takeover of…well, everything, if the Democrats were to get their way with health care “reform”, cap-and-trade, and card check.  (For the record, I think the last two are dead, and I think health care “reform” may be dead as well. I certainly hope so.)

I realize there are some (or many) who will think my judgment of Obama’s behavior too harsh.  But I think my characterization is not harsh enough.  I don’t know whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to be our president, but I’m sure that if the Constitution could speak (hint: it can’t because it’s not a “living document”) it would scream “please, make him stop!”

Non-profit health insurance already dominates market

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, September 21, 2009

John Lott makes excellent points (emphasis added):
Given all the attacks on profit-making insurance companies, what is possibly more surprising is that by far the dominant players in the “full” insurance market are non-profits. Indeed, one of the motives of the government insurance option is to take profits out of the picture. “But having a public [...]

Another Busy Weekend for Clear The Bench Colorado

by CTBC Director | 1:11 am, September 21, 2009

Another busy weekend for Clear The Bench Colorado – Director Matt Arnold made multiple radio appearances, including the first national exposure for the grassroots movement to restore accountability to the Colorado judiciary (and set an example for defending the rule of law nationwide…) and appeared at several events as well.
The Clear The Bench Colorado weekend actually began [...]

Vince Carroll: Not So Fast, We Have a GOP U.S. Senate Primary, After All

by Ben DeGrow | 2:54 pm, September 20, 2009

What a difference a week makes! Last Sunday Denver Post editorial page editor Dan Haley laid out the red carpet for Republican Jane Norton’s U.S. Senate campaign. Today, in the printed space directly beneath Haley, columnist Vince Carroll took a look at Norton’s “clunky” bio page and “languid and subdued” introductory video, and had to [...]

The latest example of why I support Josh Penry for Governor

by Rossputin | 3:32 am, September 20, 2009

In an unusually long newspaper interview a couple of weeks ago, Colorado State Senator Josh Penry demonstrated why he is our best candidate for Governor in the 2010 election.  Rather than my own editorializing, allow me to simply suggest you read Josh in his own words:

See “InnerView with Josh Penry”, Colorado Statesman, 9/4/09
http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/991266-innerview-with-josh-penry

Obama Lunch Reform

by Rossputin | 2:44 am, September 20, 2009

Free-market insurance and pre-existing conditions

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, September 20, 2009

Paul Hsieh, MD has written a review of how a free market in medical insurance would address customer concerns about how changes in health status can effect premiums and insurability.   He of course mentions health status insurance as an example. My favorite part of the article concerns how rights connect with customers and businessmen making [...]

« 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