Colorado Attorney General John Suthers weighs in on upcoming Colorado Supreme Court retention elections

by CTBC Director | 11:33 pm, January 14, 2010

A recent article in The Business Word newsblog quoted a statement by Colorado’s Attorney General John Suthers on how he intends to vote in the upcoming retention elections for the Colorado Supreme Court.  As the state’s top law enforcement official, the Attorney General’s statement carries significant weight, and is remarkable for taking such a strong stand.
Colo. [...]

Obama Care Big Labor Backroom Deal: Reminder to Back Scott Brown

by Ben DeGrow | 8:21 pm, January 14, 2010

Another Obama Care backroom deal? Yes, and who can keep track of them as they go by? This one from the Alliance for Worker Freedom:

After a Tuesday meeting between White House officials and union leaders, the two sides reached a health care deal that would exempt union health care plans from new taxes. While plans [...]

Congress to lose a champion for liberty

by Rossputin | 3:50 pm, January 14, 2010

The Hill is reporting that Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ) will not seek re-election.

I e-mailed the Congressman the following note:

Dear Congressman Shadegg,

This is Ross Kaminsky.  You may recall that we met at the Broadmoor in CO Springs last year.

I’m really sorry for the nation to hear that you will retire.  I suppose the good news is that the GOP should hold the seat in a year as bad as 2010 should be for the Dems.  But that’s not much comfort since I care much more for liberty than for the Republican Party and thought you to be one of the few true champions of liberty in Congress.

I hope that you will continue the fight for liberty and capitalism, and I hope that your future will bring you great success and enjoyment.

All the best,
Ross Kaminsky

GOP: Condition of Colorado 2010

by elpresidente | 2:23 pm, January 14, 2010

A response to Gov. Bill Ritter’s State of the State address:

The Haitian Catastrophe

by Ari Armstrong | 12:33 pm, January 14, 2010

Right now, the most important thing we can do as average Americans is to donate to charitable relief organizations, budgets permitting. (Jennifer and I chose the Red Cross.) And we can offer our gratitude and support for Americans going to Haiti to help. The magnitude of destruction is overwhelming.

We must also denounce the lunacy of people like Pat Robertson, who said the earthquake was a result of a Haitian “pact to the devil.” (Mercifully, Rick Warren said on his Twitter feed, “Labeling any natural disaster as God’s judgment is nonsense.”)

Then, as the dust settles, the majority of us not directly involved in relief efforts should contemplate how to mitigate the harm of such disasters in the future.

The first obvious thing to note about Haiti is that its government is corrupt and its people oppressed. The Heritage Foundation ranks Haiti as “mostly unfree,” ranking 147 out of 179, behind Russia.

A second point to note is that the Haitian government knew the earthquake was coming and did little to prepare for it. As Cassie Rodenberg reports for Popular Mechanics:

Back in 2008, Eric Calais and Paul Mann, geophysicists who study fault lines in the Caribbean, predicted that Haiti would soon face such a devastating quake. …

Calais says that because Haiti poses safety concerns and a difficult work environment with a poor road access system, it’s been neglected by seismologists. …

But his research didn’t translate well enough to elicit safety precautions before the quake. Though Calais notes that earthquakes can’t be prevented, he says there was enough advance warning for the Haitian government to make preparations, and, in fact, his team alerted the government four to five years beforehand.

“We’ve told the Haitian government that the Enriquillo fault is a major player,” Calais says. “We’ve told them exactly where the fault is. We’ve told them how fast it was building up elastic energy, and we’ve told them that right now, if it was to go, it could produce a 7.2 in magnitude or larger event.”

The government has worked with the team and listened to its foreboding reports, Calais says, but for the most part, Haiti has failed to implement emergency plans and restructure crucial buildings.

Economic liberty and a government constrained by the rule of just law is necessary for human life. Statism kills. Corrupt governments kill. Stifling economic development kills.

Michelle Malkin points to a post by Jim Roberts: “Long-term reforms for Haitian democracy and its economy are also badly overdue.” (I profoundly disagree with Roberts’s calls to violate economic liberty at home through forced wealth transfers in order to promote economic reform in Haiti.)

John Stossel refers to the excellent summary of the matter by economist Don Boudreaux:

The ultimate tragedy in Haiti isn’t the earthquake; it’s that country’s lack of economic freedom. The earthquake simply but catastrophically revealed the inhuman consequences of this fact.

Registering 7.0 on the Richter scale, the Haitian earthquake killed tens of thousands of people. But the quake that hit California’s Bay Area in 1989 was also of magnitude 7.0. It, though, killed only 63 people.

This difference is due chiefly to Americans’ greater wealth. With one of the freest economies in the world, Americans build stronger homes and buildings, and have better health-care and better search and rescue equipment. In contrast, burdened by one of the world’s least-free economies, Haitians cannot afford to build sturdy structures. Nor can they afford the health-care and emergency equipment that we take for granted here in the U.S.

These stark facts should be a lesson for those who insist that human habitats are made more dangerous, and human lives put in greater peril, by freedom of commerce and industry.

If you want to live, if you want to promote human life, you must advocate capitalism.

George Will Agrees: Obama Care is Unconstitutional

by Jon Caldara | 12:11 pm, January 14, 2010

In Senior Fellow Penn Pfiffner’s last podcast with Constitutional Law professor Rob Natelson, they came to the conclusion that Obama Care, with all its federal regulations and mandates, is absolutely unconstitutional.  Evidently, the legendary George Will agrees.  In “That Rock in the Health Care Road? It’s Called the Constitution,” George says,
Unless the commerce clause is [...]

Early thoughts on Hickenlooper’s candidacy

by Rossputin | 6:24 am, January 14, 2010

As I mentioned when Bill Ritter said he would not run for a second term as Governor of Colorado, “if I were Scott McInnis, I’d rather run against anyone but John Hickenlooper.”

I stand by that statement, and (despite the first Rasmussen poll) my further statement that in the early stages of the campaign, I would expect Hickenlooper to actually poll ahead of McInnis.

In the end, however, I think I may have been too pessimistic (from the point of view of the GOP) to say that Hickenlooper will beat McInnis by 5%.

Hick is no doubt a very likeable guy, but he has not faced opposition such as what will face him in a state-wide election.

The GOP has already shown at least one strategy, when a press release about Hickenlooper released before he declared his candidacy mentioned Barack Obama four times.  A key reason I thought Hick was the best candidate for the Dems is that he doesn’t work for Obama nor does he vote with him in Congress.  But the anti-coattails of Barack Obama will be hard for any Democrat to avoid.

Hick has a couple of problem issues.  One is illegal immigration.  He is simultaneously a champion of and denier of Denver as a “sanctuary city.”  Also, regardless of “who know what when”, you know that we’ll hear about the illegal who worked at one of Hickenlooper’s restaurants who murdered an off-duty police officer.

Second is “global warming” and cap-and-trade.  Yes, he said on the radio that cap and trade is “crazy”, but he also went to Copenhagen to participate in the “climate summit” held by hoaxers, rent-seekers, and power-hungry bureaucrats.  It doesn’t appear that he argued for cap-and-trade there, but the fact that he went and participated on panels doing such things as marveling at how many Danes ride bikes is not going to serve him well in trying to win votes on the Western Slope.  In effect, it looks like he’s trying to have it both ways on the issue of “global warming”, and that’s a very perilous position in politics.

Third is the number of tax hikes he has supported – and gotten passed.  “Tax Hike Hick” will be heard everywhere Republicans are speaking (as will “Hickenritter”), and few things are less popular during bad economic times than tax hikes.  Hick will be put in a position to either be against tax hikes, opening him up to criticism for his former widespread support of them or to defend his prior tax hikes which will make him very vulnerable to the charge of being someone whom we should expect to want to raise taxes.

[Addition based on important comment from reader] Fourth, Hickenlooper’s participation in “Mayors Against Illegal Guns”, a group which many gun-rights activists believe to focused on making all guns illegal, will not go down well with Coloradoans outside Denver and Boulder.

All that said, Hickenlooper is well-known and fairly well liked.  McInnis is probably less well known and less well liked, though he also does not have high negatives.  A problem for McInnis is that he has not yet inspired the GOP base to work hard for him.  A problem for Hickenlooper is that much of the Democrat base is demotivated these days.  It’s an interesting and dynamic situation and one which makes handicapping the race extremely difficult.

At the end of the day, I think my prediction of Hickenlooper by 5% is probably too negative for the GOP.  This race will probably be very close and I can definitely see McInnis winning, with the broad negative feeling about Democrats and fear of tax hikes overcoming the fact that in a neutral year Hickenlooper would probably win.  (Sort of how there were some Republican candidates who probably would have won in 2006 and 2008 if those had been more neutral years.)

Also, like most 2010 elections, a lot will depend on two things: turnout and independent voters.  For the GOP, the lower the turnout, the better.  And for both parties, winning the independent vote means winning the election.  In general, Republicans have a theoretical advantage (at least today) in both of those categories, but each race is different, obviously, and the GOP certainly has a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I have not yet decided whether I will actively support Scott McInnis.  I haven’t yet met the man and will not endorse him until I’ve had some time to speak with him.  Same goes for Jane Norton. (I’ve had a little time to talk to Ken Buck, about whom I have nothing bad to say.)  It comes down to one thing for me:  I want candidates who, using a Florida analogy, are as close as possible to Marco Rubio and as far as possible from Charlie Crist.

Diana DeHickenlooper or John Hickengette? You decide.

by Rossputin | 5:55 am, January 14, 2010

H/T WhoSaidYouSaid.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHf7B3w7-MI

Obama Care: higher taxes & premiums, poverty trap for low-wage workers

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, January 14, 2010

A new study from Cato about the House and Senate health care bills
House and Senate Democrats have produced health care legislation whose mandates, subsidies, tax penalties, and health insurance regulations would penalize work and reward Americans who refuse to purchase health insurance. As a result, the legislation could trap many Americans in low-wage jobs and [...]

Colorado Supreme Court casts long shadow over upcoming 2010 Colorado Legislative session

by CTBC Director | 11:33 pm, January 13, 2010

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” — Mark Twain (1866)
The opening of the 2010 Colorado legislative session today has renewed the danger to the liberty and property of Colorado citizens still reeling from the effects of last year’s legislative session - which saw the unconstitutional elimination of general fund spending [...]

No-No: Democrat Senate Leader Endorses Hickenlooper on State Email

by Ben DeGrow | 1:24 pm, January 13, 2010

Complete Colorado has broken a story on Democrat state senate president Brandon Shaffer using state email resources to endorse John Hickenlooper for governor. As noted:
State resources cannot be used to conduct or further political campaigns for office.

Last fall Colorado Pols spent a lot of energy making hay out of the fact that then-gubernatorial candidate Josh [...]

American Lung Association Earns “F” in Liberty

by Ari Armstrong | 11:43 am, January 13, 2010

Dear American Lung Association,

I am sorry to learn that your organization deserves an “F” in its understanding of liberty.

I was shocked to read in today’s Denver Post that the ALA has endorsed the violation of property rights (via the smoking ban), higher taxes, and more state spending in Colorado.

While I approve of your organization’s work to persuade people to quit smoking, in this case you are substituting the force of the state for rational argument. The ends do not justify the means, and you are promoting unjust policies that violate people’s rights.

As harmful as smoking is, it is not nearly as harmful as a government that systematically violates property rights and economic liberty. By seeking to forcibly limit people’s choices, you are preventing them from acting on their own judgment. The freedom to act on one’s judgment, consistent with rights of property and person, is the bedrock of liberty and prosperity. If you take away people’s ability to make mistakes, you necessarily undercut their ability to take responsibility for their lives and reach the heights of human potential.

The ALA should mind its proper business of persuading people to improve their health, not promote state policies that violate rights. It should go without saying that I do not donate to organizations that promote the violation of property rights and economic liberty.

Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong

Get a medical lab test w/o a doctor or insurance

by Brian Schwartz | 11:30 am, January 13, 2010

With politicians trying to force everyone to pay for medical care through insurance, and pay for insurance through their employer, it’s nice to see a development where the patient can still be the customer.  A couple of weeks ago Scripps News reported:
As Americans struggle to take charge of their health care — and hold down [...]

Brandon Darby – American Hero – Left Wingers call him a rat

by Mr. Bob | 9:56 am, January 13, 2010

#tcot #teaparty #socialjustice #theDC
The Daily Caller is a great new news site by FNC analyst Tucker Carlson.

As I was perusing it this morning I found this article. Even though Brandon Darby disrupted a terrorist attack here in the US. The left calls him a snitch because violence (and we’ve learned this week racism) is OK as long as the committers of such atrocities are down with “social justice” aka redistribution of wealth from the producers in society to the looters. Everything is OK if you are a progressive to many on the extreme left…any means necessary is not just a slogan.

FULL REPORT HERE

Here are some key exerpts but please read go to The DC and read the entire thing.

The two activists on whom Darby informed, David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder, received prison terms….

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis told McKay he crossed the line between peaceful dissent and violent protest. “You were leading the charge. You and Crowder were coming up here [to Minnesota] to do anarchy against the system.”

McKay and Crowder had distributed homemade riot shields to help demonstrators block streets near the Xcel Energy Center in order to prevent GOP delegates from participating in the convention. The shields were discovered and confiscated.

They also planned to throw Molotov cocktails at delegates and police. Later the two changed the plan and plotted to throw the bombs at a checkpoint area for vehicles.

Police found eight assembled Molotov cocktails consisting of bottles filled with gasoline and wicks made from tampons. “They mixed gasoline with oil so it would stick to clothing and skin and burn longer,” Darby told me.

Although McKay and Crowder conspired to deprive Americans of their rights to free speech and assembly, the duo are celebrated by many on the left. Dubbed the Texas 2, documentary filmmakers are making a movie about them called “Better This World.” The documentary received an HBO Documentary Films Fellowship.

Yet Darby, who disrupted McKay and Crowder’s violent terrorist plot, isn’t being celebrated.

This is because among many on the left — even some moderate liberals — there is a presumption of good intentions by terrorists who claim to pursue social justice ideals. “My left-wing crazies are better than your right-wing crazies,” progressive talk radio host Thom Hartmann said in an interview last year. “Our left-wing crazies are incited to violence because they’re trying to create a better world.”

To those on the extreme left, such as ACORN founder Wade Rathke, intentions are paramount.

Rasmussen Shows Massachusetts GOPmentum: Coakley 49, Brown 47

by Ben DeGrow | 9:42 am, January 13, 2010

While I agree with Don Johnson that Republican Scott Brown is still the underdog in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat, the latest Rasmussen poll showing some powerful Brown momentum against Martha Coakley (shaving the lead from 9 points to 2 in less than a week) gives me greater hope.
And [...]

The Decline and Fall of the Newspaper Industry in the Age of Pixels

by elpresidente | 8:02 am, January 13, 2010

Sometimes a picture says it all: The question is, where will you get your news? Blogs can only fill part of the gap, as the issue goes far beyond just economic or political reporting. Bloggers still look to genuine newsgathering and investigative reporting by the main/lame/left-stream media for the time being, and until the balance [...]

Cory Voorhis update: ICE attorney getting desperate

by Rossputin | 4:06 am, January 13, 2010

In the latest sign of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency’s (“ICE”) desperation to salvage their misguided prosecution of Cory Voorhis and to hide the corruption and incompetence of almost every federal agent involved in the investigation and prosecution, ICE attorney Robert Erbe is making another ridiculous gambit.

In a motion to Administrative Law Judge Jeremiah Cassidy, who is to hear Voorhis’ job termination appeal later this month, Erbe, whom I believe to be deeply involved in a criminal conspiracy in his role in the case, asks the judge to rule the testimony of Voorhis’ former supervisor, Tony Rouco, to be irrelevant, and to strike Rouco from Voorhis’ witness list.

In his rebuttal to Erbe, Voorhis’ attorney Tom Muther notes that:

• “no additional evidence has been submitted in the above captioned appeal nor has there been any substantive change to the charging document giving rise to any basis to disturb the Administrative Judge’s initial ruling regarding the relevance and necessity of GS Rouco as a witness.”
• “One can only conclude that the Agency’s present reversal of position on the relevance of GS
  Rouco’s testimony is motivated by similar dubious concerns, i.e. to shield GS Rouco’s egregious
  misconduct from public scrutiny.”

Muther further explains why Rouco’s testimony remains relevant t rebut charges made against Voorhis by ICE.

ICE attorney Robert Erbe is on thin ICE here, digging his own career’s grave (at least I hope so) by his thuggish tactics and his consistent attempts to keep Voorhis’ appeal process from the honest light of day.  First he tried to keep the entire hearing from being public.  Then when that failed, he’s trying to keep witnesses from testifying.  And this guy is being paid with our tax dollars.  He should be fired and disbarred for his behavior in the Voorhis case. The latest shenanigans are just the latest evidence of his being unfit to be an attorney or public servant.

You can read Erbe’s motion HERE and Muther’s response HERE.

Dick Wadhams responds: Candidates & caucuses, activists & assemblies

by Rossputin | 3:20 am, January 13, 2010

A Colorado blogger who goes simply by “Tony” posted a blog note yesterday accusing Colorado GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams of a variety of things, including favoritism among candidates and manipulating the caucus process.

I found Tony’s note to be rather different from my views on Wadhams’ positions and behavior, so I called Wadhams myself (after forwarding him a link to Tony’s note) to discuss the questions raised by Tony. We spent nearly 20 minutes going over the issues of Wadhams’ connections to various candidates, his contacts with Tea Party activists, and his views on the caucus/assembly process.

Our conversation was detailed and on-the-record, so rather than my words, I will simply share Dick Wadhams’ words with you:

Regarding the NRSC:

I publicly and privately admonished the NRSC when they appeared to be getting behind Jane Norton. They have done nothing to give any further indication that they are working for Jane Norton.  I have made the NRSC fully understand the backlash from Republican activists which would occur if this process is not left to be handled by Colorado Republicans.

Regarding his fiancée’s working with the Jane Norton for Senate campaign:

Wendy Evans is a professional woman in her own right and is entitled to work for whomever she wants.

Regarding his relationships with Senate candidate Ken Buck:

Ken and Perry Buck are very close friends of mine. In fact, Perry served as CO GOP vice-chairman during my first term, during 2008 election cycle. I cannot overstate to you how close I am with Ken and his wife.

Their political consultant, Walt Klein, I’ve been working with on political campaigns for 32 years.

Several people who work for the Buck campaign worked for me during the Schaffer campaign.  So, I have tremendously close ties to Ken and Perry buck.

If anybody wanted to accuse me of being too close to somebody, it would be easier to make case that it is Ken Buck rather than Jane Norton.

Regarding his relationship with Tom Wiens:

I’m also old friends with Tom Wiens.  In fact, I first met Tom Wiens when he was a field representative for the Gerald Ford campaign in 1976.

Regarding his relationship with Jane Norton:

I have also known Jane Norton for thirty years and her husband, Mike Norton, as well. My late wife, Susan, who passed away from breast cancer in 2001, was Mike Norton’s campaign manager when he ran for Congress in 1986.

Regarding the openness of the nominating process:

We have an open and fair and honest nomination process.   I had a meeting with every statewide campaign yesterday morning. We are urging everybody who wants to participate in the caucuses to register by January 19th (to meet state law requirements).

We are going to take preference polls for Governor and Senator in those caucuses on Tuesday, March 16th at 7 PM. This gives the caucus attendees something tangible they can do to show support for a candidate, and helps the delegates know how to reflect that caucus.

The Tea Party and 9/12 groups are strongly in favor of that preference poll and I hope they will actively participate.

Regarding who can speak at the GOP Assembly:

If the process isn’t good enough for (a candidate) to compete in, then they will not be allowed to speak at our state assembly, and I absolutely stand behind that decision. I am not locking anybody out of the caucus process. New candidates can still come and compete if they wish at the caucuses. Come on in and compete! Maybe (Tony) should come run and he’ll see how open and fair the process is.

Regarding Tea Party and 9/12 Project Activists:

I spoke this past Thursday (in Grand Junction) to the Western Slope Conservative Alliance, a group of 9/12 and Tea Party activists in Western Colorado. I spoke and took questions for over and hour, including talking about the openness of the process and urged them to become Republicans by January 19th so they could have an impact on the caucus process if they wanted to.

On Friday, 12/18 in my office here, I met with:

• Lu Busse, Chair of the 9/12 Project Colorado Coalition and Leadership Team
• Max Brewster, Co-organizer of the Denver/Front-Range 9/12 Project
• Gary Hoover, Atty for 9/12 Project CO Coalition
• Linda Hoover, Co-leader of South-East Denver Metro 9/12 Project
• Lisa Maurath, Co-organizer of the Denver/Front-Range 9/12 Project
• Don Rodgers, Co-leader of the 9/12 Pikes Peak Patriots
• Nancy Rumfelt, Co-founder of the Loveland 9/12 Project
• Dr. Michael and Jan Schneider, Founders of the Vail Valley 9/12 Project

I find them a refreshing and important part of the political process and I hope they become involved in the Republican Party and the nominating caucuses and assemblies.

Regarding his influece on Josh Penry’s decision to get out of the race for Governor:

It’s ironic that people accuse me of forcing Josh out of the race since shortly before that happened supporters of Scott McInnis were accusing me of pro-Penry bias.

And finally, regarding Tony the blogger:

Why didn’t he have the courage to call me directly and confront me with these accusations?

Also, why doesn’t he show me the proof or even a claim by any candidate that I’m unfairly conducting this nomination process?

I’d be happy to discuss these or other issues with him.  If he wants to call me, my cell phone number is (303) xxx-xxxx.

So, Tony, if you’d like to speak with Mr. Wadhams, which I’d agree with Wadhams you should have done in advance of making your accusations, get in touch with me and I’ll give you his cell phone number.  He’d be happy to take your call – and set you straight.  In the meantime, I’d suggest your conspiracy theories aren’t helpful…unless, that is, you are a supporter of Michael Bennet and Hicken-Ritter.

 

Giddy Up Time in Colorado

by Ari Armstrong | 1:51 am, January 13, 2010

(See 8 minutes into John Hickenlooper’s announcement for the governor’s race.)

“Teflon” John Hickenlooper in for Governor, Scott McInnis Responds

by elpresidente | 12:03 am, January 13, 2010

Hick’s the pick (at least so far), let’s see if the “non-partisan” popularity sticks: “It’s truly giddy up time in Colorado”–Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper Heh–Hick as Woody and McInnis as Buzz Lightyear.

Colorado GOP Leaders Show Serious Face Entering Legislative Session

by Ben DeGrow | 10:59 pm, January 12, 2010

Yesterday evening the Colorado Republican legislative staff hosted a blogger round (or square as the case may be) table discussion on some of the looming issues on the eve of the legislative session. Topics of discussion ranged from public employee pensions to medical marijuana to government transparency.
Rather than provide a recap, I’ll point you [...]

Seng Center 12/29 – Part One: Debate with Liberal Tom Ryan

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 9:00 pm, January 12, 2010

Part One of our special December 29th Big Debate edition of the Seng Center radio show, featuring the first part of our extensive debate with George Washington University Democrat Tom Ryan.  Together, Tom and host Jimmy Sengenberger review President Obama’s first year in office, with particular focus on the current state of the economy.

Direct Link
41.7 MB Download

Comments are more than welcome!  E-mailed Jimmy at Jimmy@SengCenter.com or post on the site!  As always, please be respectful in your remarks.

Tune in LIVE to Seng Center every Thursday night from 6-8pm MTN online at krcx.org,official website of KRCX 93.9 Regis University.

Seng Center 12/29 – Part Two: Debate with Liberal Tom Ryan

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 8:00 pm, January 12, 2010

Part Two of our special December 29th Big Debate edition of the Seng Center radio show, featuring the second part of host Jimmy Sengenberger’s extensive debate with George Washington University Democrat Tom Ryan.

In this part, Jimmy and Tom engage in an intense philosophical debate about tax increases and redistribution of wealth like you won’t find anywhere else!  They also dispute the causes of our financial crisis and the healthcare bill’s proposed Medicare cuts.

Direct Link
39.2 MB Download

Comments are more than welcome!  E-mailed Jimmy at Jimmy@SengCenter.com or post on the site!  As always, please be respectful in your remarks.

Tune in LIVE to Seng Center every Thursday night from 6-8pm MTN online at krcx.org,official website of KRCX 93.9 Regis University.

Seng Center 12/29 – Part Three: Debate with Liberal Tom Ryan

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 7:00 pm, January 12, 2010

Part Three of our December 29th Big Debate special edition Seng Center.  In this part, host Jimmy Sengenberger and guest Tom Ryan, a student at George Washington University, argue at length about the merits of ObamaCare.  You won’t find this kind of debate anywhere else!

Direct Link
59.2 MB Download

Comments are more than welcome!  E-mailed Jimmy at Jimmy@SengCenter.com or post on the site!  As always, please be respectful in your remarks.

Tune in LIVE to Seng Center every Thursday night from 6-8pm MTN online at krcx.org,official website of KRCX 93.9 Regis University.

Curtis Harris: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

by Ari Armstrong | 5:33 pm, January 12, 2010

Following are the unedited answers of Curtis Harris to the Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey.

If nothing else, Harris, a third-party candidate for the the Second Congressional, gets points for speed. He was the first candidate to reply to the survey.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

The present US Government is driving America to socialism and economic disaster. Both major political parties and the Congress are at the heart of the problem. I want to return the Federal government to its Constitutional limits and restore individual liberty in this country.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

No. Economies are stimulated by economic freedom.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

No. Corporate welfare is the result of or leads to government corruption. There is no place for it in a free economy.

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you
seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

Much lower.

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Repeal the Federal minimum wage. The States are free to chose their policy. Minimum wages are a proven killer of entry-level jobs.

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Certainly not Federal dollars. I would not support state funding, either.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Yes. Federal enforcement is often politically motivated and/or based on flawed economics.

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

Yes.

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

* What do you believe is meant by the “separation of church and state,” and do you endorse it?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
I endorse the First Amendment. That being said, this country is founded on the primacy of the rights of people as endowed by their Creator. The exclusion of general religious principles (morality) from government is a mistake.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

Not from the Federal level.

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

Not from the Federal level.

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

This should be up to local school districts and parents. A daily period of meditation would have done me a lot of good when I was in school.

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

Promote? No. Allow? Yes.

* Do you support gay marriage?

The Federal government has no role at all in marriage, gay or otherwise. I support loving, committed relationships. How the people of the States and local governments chose to define these is up to their people.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

These are different labels for marriage. The love and commitment in the relationship is all that matters.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

This is not a Federal matter. I do not have the knowledge or experience that would qualify me to have an opinion.

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

Again, no Federal role. However, I support parental notification unless there is evidence of abuse within the family.

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

Abortion is a State, not Federal matter. There are two questions here. Should abortion be legal? Should there be waiting periods?

As a practical matter, government should not interfere in family matters during the first trimester.

* Do you endorse the “personhood” measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

I am not familiar with this measure.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

Again, no Federal role. It is the family’s decision.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

Again, no Federal role. Otherwise, yes.

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman’s life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

Again, no Federal role. There can be a big argument over what constitutes “risk of life”.

* Should elective abortion be legal?

Again, no Federal role. As a practical matter, government should not interfere in family matters during the first trimester.

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

I believe the States can decide on abortion restrictions after the first trimester. I have no opinion on penalties, except the one below.

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

No.

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

States choice. My personal opinion – Yes.

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

States choice. My personal opinion – Yes.

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

States choice. My personal opinion – Yes. The research should not be Federally funded.

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

Certainly not Federal dollars.

IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest- worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

Yes. I don’t know how much, but there is unmet demand for skilled people in this country, so the additional visas or immigration would add value to our economy. People that love freedom and have the ability to add value to America should be welcomed.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?

The Federal government has a Constitutionally authorized role in immigration control.

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

Not to illegal immigrants. In any case, most Federal benefits are not authorized by the Constitution.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

Eminent domain is for legitimate public use only and the property owner must be fairly compensated.

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

I am not familiar enough with the situation to have an opinion at this time.

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

Yes. It has become a weapon against healthy growth in our economy and often violates private property rights.

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

McCain-Feingold should be repealed. It is unconstitutional. In general, campaign finance is a free speech issue and should not be restricted. Voters should have complete access to information on candidates’ campaign funding.

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

Since these signals cross State lines and can have an effect on the welfare of the United States, there is a legitimate Federal role. Beyond protections against slander, libel, and content unsuitable for minors (violations of the rights of others), there should be no content control.

* Should the FTC’s rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

Yes.

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

Yes.

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

No additional restrictions. I think Colorado’s laws in this area are a good model for the nation.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

No.

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

No.

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

Again, no Federal role here. Repeal the federal laws and leave it to the States.

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

Nothing is more important than getting the Federal government’s fiscal and monetary policies under control. Many functions of the Federal government are not authorized by our Constitution and must be phased out. Corresponding cuts in spending, taxes and regulation will allow our economy to grow and produce the tax revenue necessary to eliminate the deficit and reduce government debt.

Thank you.

Curtis Harris
www.HarrisAgainstCongress.com
http://itsthecongressstupid.blogspot.com

Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

by Ari Armstrong | 1:45 pm, January 12, 2010

Created by Ari and Linn Armstrong

[January 24 Update: Links to candidates' replies and related material are posted following the survey.]

The following survey is open to all Colorado candidates running for the 2010 elections. Candidates should fill out the survey and return it via e-mail to ari(at)freecolorado(dotcom). The survey should be sent as text only within the body of an e-mail, not as an attachment. Answers will be published in full and without editing at FreeColorado.com. Candidates should include contact information for verification purposes.

We will personally send the survey to all major-party candidates running for governor and U.S. Senate. We may send the survey to other candidates as well. We do not have the resources to send the survey to — and track answers from — every single candidate in the state. However, all Colorado candidates are welcome to respond to the survey, and FreeColorado.com will publish every reply received.

Obviously we may choose to quote from a candidate’s answers in our own articles, as may other journalists.

Voters interested in the answers of a particular candidate are encouraged to ask that candidate to send us a reply. Moreover, we encourage other journalists to press candidates for their answers to these important questions.

We have heard from various candidates who decline to answer at least some surveys. We strongly encourage candidates to answer ours. We believe that Colorado voters deserve to know where candidates stand on the issues.

Our goal is to fairly elicit a candidate’s substantive views on a variety of critical issues. While many of the questions may be answered yes or no, we encourage candidates to offer whatever nuances they deem appropriate. If you think a question is loaded, tell us why. If you want to explain how your thinking has evolved or how your answer squares with your record, please do so. If you have not developed a position on some issue, say as much. We will reproduce your answers as given. We do ask that candidates not confuse nuance with evasiveness.

Note: Some questions are marked for state-level or federal-level candidates. While all candidates are welcome to answer all the questions, candidates for one level of government need not answer questions specific to another level.

We believe that candidates can be fair to voters only by revealing their views on the important issues of the day. We look forward to reading and publishing the replies.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights be kept completely intact? If not, how should it be altered?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Amendment 23 be repealed, maintained, or modified?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should any particular state taxes or fees (such as the state corporate income tax or the subjects of the tax-cutting initiatives) be repealed or reduced? Should any be added or increased?

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

* What do you believe is meant by the “separation of church and state,” and do you endorse it?

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

* Do you support gay marriage?

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?

* Should government mandate waiting periods or ultrasounds before a woman may legally obtain an abortion?

* Do you endorse the “personhood” measure that may appear on the 2010 ballot?

* Should abortion be legal in cases of fetal deformity?

* Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?

* Should abortion be legal in cases of risk to the woman’s life, as determined by the health professional selected by that woman?

* Should elective abortion be legal?

* If you believe that abortion should be legally restricted, what criminal penalties do you advocate for a woman and her doctor for obtaining or facilitating an illegal abortion?

* Would execution ever be an appropriate penalty for obtaining or facilitating illegal abortions?

* Should types of birth control be legal that may prevent a fertilized egg or zygote from implanting in the uterus?

* Should fertility treatments be legal that may result in the freezing or destruction of a fertilized egg or zygote?

* Should research involving the use of embryonic stem cells be legal?

* Should abortions or embryonic stem cell research be subsidized by tax dollars?

IMMIGRATION

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should the U.S. expand a legal guest-worker program or legal immigration, and, if so, by how much?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should Colorado government force employers to verify with the federal government the legal status of potential employees, and, if so, what penalties should apply for failure to do so?

* Should federal or state tax-funded benefits (depending on which office you seek), including K-12 education, be extended only to U.S. citizens, to legal immigrants and guest workers, or to everyone in the U.S. including illegal immigrants?

PROPERTY RIGHTS

* What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the use of eminent domain?

* Do you endorse the use of eminent domain in the case of the Pinon Canyon military expansion? Do you support the military expansion if it does not involve eminent domain?

* Should the Endangered Species Act be altered or differently enforced?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should the smoking ban be maintained, expanded, or repealed? Should it apply to on-stage performances?

BILL OF RIGHTS

* Should McCain-Feingold and state campaign finance restrictions be repealed, maintained, or expanded?

* Should the federal government control what radio or television stations may broadcast?

* Should the FTC’s rules regarding blogger endorsements be rescinded?

* Should students with licenses be legally permitted to carry concealed handguns on the property of tax-subsidized colleges?

* Should additional restrictions be added (or repealed) on gun ownership? Please specify.

* Do you believe that desecration of the U.S. flag should be outlawed by Constitutional amendment?

* Do you believe that pornography or obscene materials involving consenting adults should be legally restricted?

OTHER

* Should state or federal laws (depending on which office you seek) pertaining to marijuana be altered, and, if so, how?

* (State-Level Candidates:) Should rules pertaining to petitioners be altered, and, if so, how?

* If there is any important issue that you believe we have missed, please state what it is and state your position on it.

Thank you.

Candidates Should Giddy Up and Answer Survey (Free Press column)

At Least Dan Maes Answered the Questions (Free Press column)

Curtis Harris Libertarian for Congress

Dan Maes Republican for Governor

Rich Hand Independent for Governor

John Finger Libertarian for U.S. Senate

Help Dave Kopel “Aim for Liberty”

by Jon Caldara | 1:14 pm, January 12, 2010

Our very own gun-toting, Second Amendment junky, and legal scholar Dave Kopel recently published a fantastic book (for you crazy people who read) called Aiming for Liberty: The Past, Present, and Future of Freedom and Self-Defense. Here’s a quick synopsis:
David Kopel’s book covers topics ranging from the origins of the Washington, DC gun ban [...]

Join Us in Making Resolutions to Kick Obama Care Out of Colorado!

by Jon Caldara | 12:27 pm, January 12, 2010

Welcome to the new year! I can’t believe it’s only 2 weeks into 2010 and I’ve managed to make and break all my resolutions, one of which was to not break anymore resolutions.
But there is one resolution that we at the Independence Institute made as a whole and will not break under any circumstance: [...]

America Must Understand What has Happened to the Democratic Party

by Mr. Bob | 9:46 am, January 12, 2010

I am ignoring Harry Reid today…I think his latest idiocy can be completely blamed on the Democrat mindset that voters can be manipulated…and eyes are being opened. The fact that he said it to his publisher…printed it in his book in 2010 is eye opening to many people but not to those who follow politics. The Dems have USED the black voter, the poor voters, and the ignorance of the populace to their advantage without any true regard for their welfare for decades.
Democrats must understand what has happened to their party. And those of us on the right need also to know what the true intentions of the Soros party is.

Hat tip to New Zeal Blog

Treasurer Candidate Ali Hasan’s Approach Misguided, Attacks Unserious

by Ben DeGrow | 6:47 am, January 12, 2010

It was disappointing to see a copy of the latest Colorado Statesman and read the headline: “Hasan opens treasurer’s race by attacking his foes.” Just last week I welcomed Ali Hasan to the Republican state treasurer’s primary and re-issued the admonition to stay focused on incumbent Cary Kennedy.
Not that Hasan or any other candidate has [...]

« 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