Save Our Constitution Rally

by T.L. James | 12:49 am, September 20, 2009

The Council for Wise Public Policy held a rally today on the Capitol steps in Denver: The rally is a nonpartisan chance for Colorado Americans to gather together behind our two founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and stand up for our First Amendment and Second Amendment rights, as well as against out-of-control [...]

Hugh Hewitt Visits Denver, Stumps for Lucero, Broadcasts Live

by T.L. James | 11:15 pm, September 19, 2009

Lawyer, radio host, and author Hugh Hewitt was in town this weekend. Among other things, he attended a fundraiser at the University Club in Denver for GOP Congressional candidate Tom Lucero (CD-4) and held an open-to-the-public live broadcast of his show from the campus of CCU in Lakewood. PPC contributor and Clear the Bench Colorado head [...]

‘Save Our Constitution’ Rally at 1:00!

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 10:08 am, September 19, 2009

No plans yet for this afternoon?  Try this! At 1:00, the Council for Wise Public Policy will be holding an exciting, nonpartisan rally event on the West Steps of the Colorado Capitol.  The event, known as the ‘Save Our Constitution’ Rally has been organized by Daniel Griffiths.  Here are the details: The rally will last [...]

Make Congress enroll in “public option”

by Brian Schwartz | 1:31 am, September 19, 2009

Related post: Congress & gov’t employees would be exempt from new insurance mandates.
Senator David Vitter (R-La) argues that Congress should enroll in any government-run health plan they want to impose on U.S. citizens:
I’ve joined together with Rep. John Fleming, R-Minden, to apply pressure to the Washington politicians by requiring members of the House of Representatives, [...]

William Faulkner: The Duty to Be Free

by Rossputin | 12:51 am, September 19, 2009

(Thanks to Christopher for sending me this link, and thanks to the Mises Institute for printing, electronically speaking, the following article by William Faulkner, originally published under the same title in January, 1953.)

 

The Duty to Be Free by William Faulkner

Years ago our fathers founded this nation on the premise of the rights of man. As they expressed it, “the inalienable right of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

In those days they knew what those words meant, not only the ones who expressed them, but the ones who heard and believed and accepted and subscribed to them. Because until that time, men did not always have those rights. At least, until that time, no nation had ever been founded on the idea that those rights were possible, let alone inalienable. So not only the ones who said the words, but the ones who merely heard them, knew what they meant. Which was this: “Life and liberty in which to pursue happiness. Life free and secure from oppression and tyranny, in which all men would have the liberty to pursue happiness.”

And both of them knew what they meant by “pursue.” They did not mean just to chase happiness, but to work for it. And they both knew what they meant by “happiness” too: not just pleasure, idleness, but peace, dignity, independence and self-respect; that man’s inalienable right was the peace and freedom in which, by his own efforts and sweat, he could gain dignity and independence, owing nothing to any man.

We knew what the words meant then, because we didn’t have these things. And, since we didn’t have them, we knew their worth. We knew that they were worth suffering and enduring and, if necessary, even dying to gain and preserve. We were willing to accept even the risk of death for them, since even if we lost them ourselves in relinquishing life to preserve them, we would still be able to bequeath them intact and inalienable to our children.

Which is exactly what we did, in those old days. We left our homes, the land and graves of our fathers and all familiar things. We voluntarily gave up, turned our backs on, a security which we already had and which we could have continued to have, as long as we were willing to pay the price for it, which price was our freedom — of liberty of thought and independence of action and the right of responsibility. That is, by remaining in the old world, we could have been not only secure, but even free of the need to be responsible. Instead, we chose the freedom, the liberty, the independence and the inalienable right to responsibility.

Almost without charts, in frail wooden ships with nothing but sails and our desire and will to be free to move them, we crossed an ocean which did not even match the charts we did have; we conquered a wilderness in order to establish a place, not to be secure in because we did not want that, we had just repudiated that, just crossed three thousand miles of dark and unknown sea to get away from that; but a place to be free in, to be independent in, to be responsible in.

And we did it. Even while we were still battling the wilderness with one hand, with the other we fended and beat off the power which would have followed us even into the wilderness we had conquered, to compel and hold us to the old way. But we did it. We founded a land, and founded in it not just our right to be free and independent and responsible, but the inalienable duty of man to be free and independent and responsible. What I am talking about is responsibility. Not just the right but the duty of man to be responsible, the necessity of man to be responsible if he wishes to remain free; not just responsible to and for his fellow man, but to himself; the duty of a man, the individual, each individual, every individual, to be responsible for the consequences of his own acts, to pay his own score, owing nothing to any man.

We knew it once, had it once. Because why? Because we wanted it above all else, we fought for it, endured, suffered, died when necessary, but gained it, established it, to endure for us and then to be bequeathed to our children.

Only, something happened to us. The children inherited. A new generation came along, a new era, a new age, a new century. The times were easier; the life and future of our nation as a nation no longer hung in balance; another generation, and we no longer had enemies, not because we were strong in our youth and vigor, but because the old tired rest of earth recognized that here was a nation founded on the principle of individual man’s responsibility as individual man.

But we still remembered responsibility, even though, with easier times, we didn’t need to keep the responsibility quite so active, or at least not so constantly so. Besides, it was not only our heritage, it was too recent yet for us to forget it, the graves were still green of them who had bequeathed it to us, and even of them who had died in order that it might be bequeathed. So we still remembered it, even if a good deal of the remembering was just lip-service.

Then more generations; we covered at last the whole face of the western earth; the whole sky of the western hemisphere was one loud American affirmation, one vast Yes; we were the whole world’s golden envy; never had the amazed sun itself seen such a land of opportunity in which all a man needed were two legs to move to a new place on, and two hands to grasp and hold with, in order to amass to himself enough material substance to last him the rest of his days and, who knew? Even something over for his and his wife’s children.

And still he paid lip-service to the old words “freedom” and “liberty” and “independence”; the sky still rang and ululated with the thunderous affirmation, the golden Yes. Because the words in the old premise were still true, for the reason that he still believed they were true. Because he did not realize yet that when he said “security,” he meant security for himself, for the rest of his days, with perhaps a little over for his children; not for the children and the children’s children of all men who believed in liberty and freedom and independence, as the old fathers in the old strong, dangerous times had meant it.

Because somewhere, at some moment, something had happened to him, to us, to all the descendants of the old tough, durable, uncompromising men, so that now, in 1952, when we talk of security, we don’t even mean for the rest of our own lives, let alone that of our and our wife’s children, but only for so long as we ourselves can hold our individual place on a public relief roll or at a bureaucratic or political or any other organization’s gravy trough. Because somewhere, at some point, we had lost or forgot or voluntarily rid ourselves of that one other thing, lacking which, freedom and liberty and independence cannot even exist.

That thing is the responsibility, not only the desire and the will to be responsible, but the remembrance from the old fathers of the need to be responsible. Either we lost it, forgot it, or we deliberately discarded it. Either we decided that freedom was not worth the responsibility of being free, or we forgot that, to be free, a man must assume and maintain and defend his right to be responsible for his freedom.

Maybe we were even robbed of responsibility, since for years now the very air itself — radio, newspapers, pamphlets, tracts, the voices of politicians — has been loud with talk about the rights of man — not the duties and obligations and responsibilities of man, but only the “rights” of man; so loud and so constant that apparently we have come to accept the sounds at their own evaluation, and to believe too that man has nothing else but rights: not the right to independence and freedom in which to work and endure in his own sweat in order to earn for himself what the old ancestors meant by happiness and the pursuit of it, but only the chance to swap his freedom and independence for the privilege of being free of the responsibilities of independence; the right not to earn, but to be given, until at last, by simple compound usage, we have made respectable and even elevated to a national system, that which the old tough fathers would have scorned and condemned: charity.

In any case, we no longer have responsibility. And if we were robbed of it by such as this which now seems to have taken over responsibility, it was because we were vulnerable to that kind of ravishment; if we simply lost or forgot responsibility, then we too are to be scorned. But if we deliberately discarded it, then we have condemned ourselves, because I believe that in time, maybe not too long a time, we will discover that, as was said about one of Napoleon’s acts, what we have committed is worse than a crime: it was a mistake.

Two hundred years ago, the Irish statesman, John Curran, said, “God hath vouchsafed man liberty only on condition of eternal vigilance; which condition if he break it, servitude is the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” That was only two hundred years ago.

Our own old New England and Virginia and Carolina fathers knew that three hundred years ago, which was why they came here and founded this country. And I decline to believe that we, their descendants, have really forgotten it. I prefer to believe rather that it is because the enemy of our freedom now has changed his shirt, his coat, his face.

He no longer threatens us from across an international boundary, let alone across an ocean. He faces us now from beneath the eagle-perched domes of our capitals and from behind the alphabetical splatters on the doors of welfare and other bureaus of economic or industrial regimentation, dressed not in martial brass but in the habiliments of what the enemy himself has taught us to call peace and progress, a civilization and plenty where we never before had it as good, let alone better. His artillery is a debased and respectless currency which has emasculated the initiative for independence by robbing initiative of the only mutual scale it knew to measure independence by.

The economists and sociologists say that the reason for this condition is too many people. I don’t know about that, myself, since in my opinion I am even a worse sociologist and economist than a farmer. But even if I were a sociologist or economist, I would decline to believe this. Because to believe this, that man’s crime against his freedom is that there are too many of him, is to believe that man’s sufferance on the face of the earth is threatened, not by his environment, but by himself: that he cannot hope to cope with his environment and its evils, because he cannot even cope with his own mass.

Which is exactly what those who misuse and betray the mass of him for their own aggrandizement and power and tenure of office, believe: that man is incapable of responsibility and freedom, of fidelity and endurance and courage, that he not only cannot choose good from evil, he cannot even distinguish it, let alone practice the choice. And to believe that, you have already written off the hope of man, as they who have reft him of his inalienable right to be responsible have done, and you might as well quit now and let man stew on in peace in his own recordless and oblivious juice, to his deserved and ungrieved doom.

I, for one, decline to believe this. I decline to believe that the only true heirs of Boone and Franklin and George and Booker T. Washington and Lincoln and Jefferson and Adams and John Henry and John Bunyan and Johnny Appleseed and Lee and Crockett and Hale and Helen Keller, are the ones denying and protesting in the newspaper headlines over mink coats and oil tankers and Federal indictments for corruption in public office. I believe that the true heirs of the old tough, durable fathers are still capable of responsibility and self-respect, if only they can remember them again.

What we need is not fewer people, but more room between them, where those who would stand on their own feet, could, and those who won’t, might have to. Then the welfare, the relief, the compensation, instead of being nationally sponsored cash prizes for idleness and ineptitude, could go where the old independent uncompromising fathers themselves would have intended it and blessed it.

——————-

William Faulkner (1897–1962) was the third American to receive the Nobel Prize in literature. This was in 1949 and came after many years of novel writing, beginning with “The Marble Faun” in 1924. Most of Faulkner’s works are set in his native state of Mississippi. He is considered one of the most important Southern writers along with Mark Twain, Robert Penn Warren, Flannery O’Connor, Truman Capote, Eudora Welty, and Tennessee Williams.

And you wonder who the racists are in this country?

by Rossputin | 7:37 pm, September 18, 2009

The Washington Times has a remarkably damning editorial about Attorney General Eric Holder.  While I would say that Holder’s  appointment is an embarrassment to the nation, it’s no greater an embarrassment than the election of Barack Obama, and certainly not a surprise that Obama would choose a racist for the job.

See “Race to injustice“, Washington Times, 9/17/09
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/17/race-to-injustice/

Clear the Bench Colorado Joins Hugh Hewitt Today on National Airwaves

by Ben DeGrow | 2:22 pm, September 18, 2009

Last night I kindly berated national talk show host Hugh Hewitt for his ignorance pertaining to Colorado Republican politics. Apparently, he’s in our state today and has an opportunity to listen, learn, and change his ways.
One guest who is scheduled to appear on his show this afternoon (sometime between 4 and 6 PM on 710 [...]

WHY there are Tea Party Protests – let me sum up

by Mr. Bob | 11:15 am, September 18, 2009

It has not because of the health care plans (though that is part of it), it is not because the protesters don’t like a black guy being in charge, it is because of THIS:

Funny Friday – ACORN taking heat from late night

by Mr. Bob | 10:01 am, September 18, 2009

Of course the 800 pound Gorilla question in the room is; just how extensive are President Obama’s personal ties to ACORN?

While ACORN remains riddled in scandal, lawmakers have voted to cut off federal funding to the group, the U.S. Census Bureau has severed ties to the organization – and the White House has blasted its behavior as “unnacceptable.”

But just how extensive are President Obama’s personal ties to ACORN?

The following is a timeline outlining some of the purported connections between the president and ACORN through the years:READ IT HERE

Colorado Political Temperature Survey Results to be Unveiled Monday

by Ben DeGrow | 8:05 am, September 18, 2009

Thank you to everyone who participated in our September survey of Colorado’s political temperature. We had 500 people take the survey — down somewhat from last time, but still a very strong showing. We appreciate it very much.
Some already have started to ask about the release of the results, so let me share the (tentative) [...]

Carbon Criminals, Waxman–Markey, and your wallet

by Rossputin | 2:47 am, September 18, 2009

JunkScience.com has begun a series of “Wanted” posters for American “Carbon Criminals”, CEOs who are supporting the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill as a way to steer money from taxpayers to their corporations.

Two of my most-despised corporate villains made their list, Jim Rogers of Duke Energy and Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric:

(Click on the images for larger PDF versions of the posters.)

Americans have a misperception, helped along by Democrats and their useful idiots in the dominant liberal media, that the Republican Party is controlled by corporations and that the Democratic Party is for “the little guy”.  This is, of course, utterly false.  Corporations donate money to politicians of all stripes, particularly those in power.

They cozy up to whomever can help them with their tax break, loophole, or subsidy.

They cave in to political pressure (not entirely an unreasonable thing to do when you have as vengeful a political leadership as we have with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama) such as in the pharmaceutical industry’s “deal” to help “cut costs” of drugs.  Of course, in return for this, the industry expects provisions in any health care “reform” that will increase their profits by even more, much like what happened with the tobacco companies’ settlement with the federal government which increased tobacco’s profits by killing competition.  And, not surprisingly, Pelosi and other Dems soon said there was no deal. (I don’t blame them…the White House shouldn’t be making deals with industries, but neither should Congress.)

I’ve written about Jim Rogers and his ilk before and I continue to believe they are essentially traitors to capitalism.

Some people (not me) would argue for cap-and-trade if they thought it would be beneficial to the environment at a reasonable cost.  But it will be neither.  Even supporters of Waxman-Markey don’t claim it will change temperatures by more than a small fraction of a degree 50 or 100 years from now – less than any natural annual variation.

Even worse is the cost of the plan – a cost which the government continues to try to hide from us but which, thanks to the work of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (“CEI”), we can now see the Treasury Department’s estimates for.

In THESE Treasury Documents, obtained by CEI through a Freedom of Information Act requests, there are some interesting highlights (and lowlights):

• “While such a program can yield environmental benefits that justify its costs (no, it can’t, say I), it will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of ___ dollars.”  I can not imagine on what rational, legal basis the Treasury redacted the part of the sentence which actually gave Treasury’s cost estimate.  Is that a national security risk?  Unbelievable how the “most transparent Administration” works so hard to keep information from its citizens.
• “A cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 (billion) to $200 billion annually.”  As CEI notes, the upper end of that estimate is “equivalent to a $1,761 annual tax for the average family – or approximately a 15% tax hike!”
• “Economic costs (of Waxman-Markey) will likely be on the order of 1% of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”  I don’t think I need to elaborate further on that remarkable statement except to say I’m surprised they didn’t black out that sentence as well.
• (The plan) “may result in a loss of domestic and international market shares for U.S. companies, and reolcation of U.S. firms abroad, representing both a political problem and an environmental problem.  The latter, referred to as leakage, diminishes the effectiveness of climate policies by offsetting economic activity in emissions-constrained areas with increased activity in coutries lacking suck constraints.” (Why do you think China is refusing to participate in kneecapping their own economy with such regulations while simultaneously encouraging the U.S. to take even more aggressive anti-carbon measures?)  “A few U.S. energy-intensive sectors, such as the steel, aluminum, paper, chemicals, and cement industries, where imports are ready substitutes and lower carbon technologies are not widely available, are clearly vulnerable.”
• “Domestic policies to address climate change and the related issues of energy security and affordability will involve significant costs and potential revenues, _________________________”  Again, part of a sentence which appears to lay out the Treasury’s estimate of cost to taxpayers is redacted.  And again, I ask by what standard that redaction is permitted.  Also, note that the costs are certainly “significant” while the revenues are “potential”. Furthermore, any revenues from a plan like this will simply mean higher costs to American consumers for EVERYTHING you buy.  Or at least anything that requires energy to make or transport.  And don’t forget, that includes food, both in the obvious transportation costs and in the less obvious production costs, whether for fuel for equipment or the energy component of making feed and fertilizer.
• There are several other disconcerting black-out sections of the documents, including 5 lines at the beginning of the “Key Challenges” section.

It is great to see one of the “letter networks” pick up this issue on one of their blogs.  Not just pick it up, but run with it.  Over at CBS’s “Taking Liberties” blog, Declan McCullagh not only wrote about the Treasury documents and CEI’s work in obtaining them, but then defended himself and CEI against left-wing propaganda. McCullagh also says he’s questioning the Treasury Department about the justification for the many blacked-out sections of the documents.  (He says he still hasn’t received a response.) I haven’t seen such good work by a CBS employee…well, maybe ever.

I believe that cap-and-trade is dead.  The good news of its having passed the House is that it will be a great vote to hold against the Democrats (and several Republicans) who supported it, either because they were bought off by Henry Waxman (like Marcy Kaptur) or because they’re clueless (like Dave Reichert, who admits “we can’t read all these bills”) or because they’re just typical politicians (like Mark Kirk; see also THIS).  (Note that two of the three I just named are Republicans, although there were only 8 Republicans who voted for Waxman-Markey.)

Heads We Win, Tails You Lose – Massachusetts Changes Rules to guarantee a Dem. Kennedy Senate successor

by The Peripatetic Pundit | 2:23 am, September 18, 2009

Late Thursday night, the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts state House of Representatives passed a bill designed to ensure that Democrat Governor Deval Patrick can quickly appoint a Democrat to fill deceased Democrat Ted Kennedy’s open Senate seat in order to guarantee an uninterrupted filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the U.S. Senate. The bill was immediately moved to the [...]

Cost of obama health care

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, September 18, 2009

This video by Reason.tv reminds us that politicians are terrible at predicting costs of their programs.

Related video: Obama Care and America’s Entitlement Kids.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show (KNUS 710 AM), Friday 18 September

by CTBC Director | 1:11 am, September 18, 2009

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold joins Hugh Hewitt on KNUS 710 AM between 4-6PM Friday, 18 September (not the full two hours, but the exact segment is not known at press time) to discuss the Mullarkey Court’s repeated assaults on the Colorado Constitution, on the day after this year’s Constitution Day (the 222nd anniversary of the [...]

Hugh Hewitt, Meet Josh Penry

by Ben DeGrow | 11:20 pm, September 17, 2009

First, it was Michigan-Ohio State football. Then it was the whole litany of Cleveland sports. The near-weekly disembarkation into the world of popular and classic movies. Of late, national radio host Hugh Hewitt has shown another entire topic about which he would be better served staying silent as opposed to demonstrating his ignorance: I speak [...]

Obama Pulls an NRSC – Endorses Bennet to Shut Out Romanoff

by T.L. James | 11:18 pm, September 17, 2009

Poor Andrew Romanoff – his candidacy is barely a day old, and President Obama is already sabotaging it: President Barack Obama endorsed U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet today, throwing the force of the White House into a Democratic primary battle that officially is just over a day old. “Families in Colorado and across America need (Bennet) [...]

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appearing on “Seng Center” radio for Constitution Day broadcast

by CTBC Director | 5:00 pm, September 17, 2009

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold joins Jimmy Sengenberger on his “Seng Center” radio show Thursday at 6PM (KRCX 93.9 FM or online at regis.edu/krcx) to discuss the Mullarkey Court’s repeated assaults on the Colorado Constitution, honoring the occasion of this year’s Constitution Day (the 222nd anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution).
If you missed the broadcast, [...]

Constitution Day, Clear the Bench on “Seng Center”

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 4:21 pm, September 17, 2009

Today, in honor of Constitution Day, the day the U.S. Constitution was signed in 1787, Regis University’s Seng Center online radio show is focusing in on the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions! Join host Jimmy Sengenberger TONIGHT at 6:00 as we chat about the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions and where things are headed in this state [...]

Happy Birthday to Us!!

by Jon Caldara | 2:35 pm, September 17, 2009

Can you believe it?  The Independence Institute is turning 25 years old this November, and this year’s Founder’s Night celebration is going to be the best ever, bar none.  We’ve outgrown our previous Founder’s Night location (the Sewell Ballroom) and will be moving to bigger and better digs at Infinity Park’s International Ballroom in Glendale, [...]

Jon Stewart on ACORN – the house of nuts is crumbling

by Mr. Bob | 1:45 pm, September 17, 2009

#hhrs #tcot #acorn #teaparty

Not a big fan of Stewart (an admitted fake journalist) but he does occasionally get something right. Hat tip Michelle Malkin.

The Audacity of Hos

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Daily Show Full Episodes		Political Humor	Healthcare Protests

House Votes to Cut all ACORN Funding – MurthaPort Vote

by Mr. Bob | 1:22 pm, September 17, 2009

The US House today joined the Senate in voting to defund ACORN, the community advocacy group beset by allegations of voter registration fraud and videotapes apparently showing employees advising conservative activists posing as a prostitute and pimp how to break the law.

The measure, offered as part of a motion on a student loan bill, passed by a vote of 345-75.

Colorado Representatives who voted NO…as in, We love ACORN appeciate what they do and want to continue sending them millions each month; both D. Degette and J. Polis. You should let them know how you feel about that.

JACK MURTHA AIRPORT vote. see how your Senator Voted.

As corruption watch continues, Senate VOTES 53-43 to keep the Murtha Airport! One of the greatest examples of government waste and pork in our time. Throw them all out.

Obama Care Update: Jared Polis Hedging His Bets on Medical Tourism?

by Ben DeGrow | 8:18 am, September 17, 2009

Update: Tying the knot complete on this post, Jared Polis (along with fellow Colorado Democrat Diana Degette) was one of the 75 members of the U.S. House who voted today against ending taxpayer funding of ACORN.
Based on original research, Complete Colorado’s Todd Shepherd brings forward some interesting insights on Boulder Democrat Congressman Jared Polis’ personal [...]

Baucus health plan critique (”America’s Healthy Future Act”)

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, September 17, 2009

“The major new health-care overhaul bill that landed in the Senate on Wednesday sets the lines for a fall showdown over taxes, spending and coverage for millions of uninsured Americans. The bill, by Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, breaks a logjam and is likely to form the core of a bill in [...]

The Big Korkowski

by Ari Armstrong | 11:25 pm, September 16, 2009

Dude. Can a bald, edgy lawyer from Crested Butte win the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate? I wouldn’t bet the odds in Vegas. My early prediction is that Andrew Romanoff will take the Democratic nomination from Senator Bennet, then lose narrowly to Jane Norton in the general. But I’ve been wrong before with these predictions.

But at least Luke Korkowski is an interesting underdog. How many people running for Congress say they want to abolish the federal reserve and run “legislation that gradually brings Medicare and Medicaid to an end?” At least among major parties in Colorado, the answer is exactly one. But is Luke a force or a farce?

It’s no secret that I like Ryan Frazier. Unfortunately, he seems to think he can platitude his way through the nomination. I guarantee he will not be able to out-platitude Jane Norton. He might be able to express his platitudes more energetically, but that won’t get him very far. For example, what in the hell does it mean to “give people a hand up, not a handout?”

It would be pleasant if the various Republican candidates would actually spell out their positions at some point. For example, Frazier seems to be trying to ride the fence when it comes to abortion. According to a news story republished on Frazier’s web page, “Frazier is pro-life on abortion.” Yet Frazier told Westword, “I am not a fan of abortion, but I struggle with whether it is the appropriate role of the government to place itself there.” Still elsewhere, Frazier indicated that it’s a matter of state’s rights. So which is it, Ryan? Either you do, or you do not, wish to impose legal restrictions on abortion. I don’t want to hear about your struggles, I don’t want to hear empty code words, I want to hear what is your position on the issues.

At least I know, definitively, what Korkowski thinks about something.

I also wonder whether Frazier’s heart is really in the race. I saw him at the Denver 9/12 rally. He was speaking to a few people on the edge of the crowd. I talked to him for a while. But I wondered what he was doing there. Where were the college kids with “Frazier For Senate” T-shirts handing out flyers among the crowd? If you’re going to work a crowd, then for Reagan’s sake work the crowd! If you’re too worried about getting associated with cranks, then stay home or campaign elsewhere. But to go to a rally and chit-chat on the sidelines struck me as peculiar for somebody running for the U.S. Senate.

I had no idea who the bald guy standing on the chair was as he prepared to address Liberty On the Rocks Wednesday night. But then it struck me: “You’re the bike guy, right?” By coincidence, just that morning I had read Lynn Bartels’s article on the candidate’s upcoming bicycle trip from Salida to Keystone.

I noticed the article only because Korkowski called it his “Free Colorado” tour. (This struck me because, as the reader may have noticed, my web page is called FreeColorado.com. There is now also ColoradoFreedom.net and LiveFreeColorado.org. But there is only one, original FreeColorado.com.)

Of all the possible election scenarios, here’s one I consider particularly interesting. Josh Penry, desperate to overcome his “recognition gap” with Scott “His Wackiness” McInnis, successfully pleads with Frazier to run as his lieutenant governor — certainly a decent step up for a city councilman. This leaves open the Senate race for the establishment candidate to run against a scrappy underdog who doesn’t shy from principles. I’m not saying I’m for that, but I do think it would be an interesting scenario.

I’m still not quite sure why Korkowski is running for U.S. Senate. I’m definitely no fan of his national sales tax. But at least I know, specifically, what some of his positions are. And in today’s political climate of gloss and glamor, that’s worth a lot.

Wednesday Wrap-Up

by Jon Caldara | 1:50 pm, September 16, 2009

***Heard Obama’s health care speech to the nation? Thought he was full of it? Yeah, me too. And so does Scott Harrington of the Wall Street Journal, who fact-checked the speech for its fallacies and misrepresentations.
***Mr. Tom Moriarty was kind enough to film my speech at the 9.12 rally and edit it [...]

Awesome Photos from WW2 era

by Mr. Bob | 11:14 am, September 16, 2009

I am home with two sick kids today, no time to blog, work or do the usual. But I got these from a friend and thought I’d pass them along. Very interesting look into a very succesful operation here in the states to hide Lockheed from the air.

Lockheed During WW II (unbelievable 1940s pictures) This is pretty neat–special effects during the 1940′s: I have never seen these pictures or knew that we had gone this far to protect us. During World War II the Army Corps of Engineers needed to hide the Lockheed Burbank Aircraft Plant to protect it from Japanese air attack. They covered it with camouflage netting to make it look like a rural subdivision from the air. (Besides everything else, check out the cars.) Click on the pictures for full size view.

Jon Stewart on ACORN: Audacity of Hos

by elpresidente | 11:04 am, September 16, 2009

As they say, when you’ve lost Jon Stewart . . . (h/t Gateway Pundit): The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Ending Federal Funding of ACORN is Cause We Should All Rally Around

by Ben DeGrow | 7:56 am, September 16, 2009

Wednesday Quick Hit: On some issues there’s plenty of room for debate and disagreement, but it seems to me that terminating federal taxpayer funding of ACORN is a cause we all should be able to rally around.

John Stossel leaving ABC for Fox

by Rossputin | 7:09 am, September 16, 2009

Ironically, given that I had posted a blog piece about John Stossel for this morning, in a piece at TownHall.com, Stossel, ABC’s one voice of libertarianism and sanity, is announcing that he’s leaving ABC for a weekly one-hour show on Fox News.

I’m a fan of Stossel’s work and I understand the frustration he describes having at ABC.  I also understand how appealing it is to go to a network where there are more like-minded people and where, generally, a wider range of viewpoints is not just tolerated by encouraged.

Still, I’m somewhat sad to see one of the few clear thinkers on any of the old-line broadcast networks leave.

Fox News does incredibly well for a cable channel, but there are many millions of people who watch ABC or the other “broadcast” networks.  If Fox gets all the non-liberal talent, then there will be many millions of people never exposed to non-liberal views on the evening news or “news magazine” programs.

I know that Stossel is just one guy, an often repressed voice by his network. And I have no doubt that he will enjoy his new home.  It’s still too early to say whether his impact will be increased by the move.  And, of course, it’s his life and he should do what’s best for him.

I just wonder if we’ll ever see the day when the intellectual stalags of ABC, CBS, and NBC will ever open their news gates to journalists whose brains are not stunted by the political correctness and lack of intellectual oxygen within their halls.  It’s probably no more likely than seeing a similar trend in our universities, which is to say probably not during my lifetime.

Obama Care: encourage insurers to avoid the sick, cater to healthy

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, September 16, 2009

Typically profit-seeking companies try to sell products that their customers want.  Not so with insurance companies when they must charge the same premium to high-risk patients as low-risk patients.  Such a political control is known as “community rating.” Michael Cannon explains an unintended consequence of community rating in Massachusetts:
Massachusetts long ago adopted another feature of [...]

« 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