Government-run health care erodes liberty forever

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, March 15, 2010

From Mark Steyn in the Orange County Register:
[T]he governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. …
The result is a kind of two-party one-party state: Right-of-center [...]

Colorado Caucus 2010

by elpresidente | 5:57 pm, March 14, 2010

You’ve attended scores of caucus trainings . . . Thousands have attended candidate search forums and heard from the candidates themselves . . . You’ve planned to attend your precinct caucus location, or you can search for it online . . . Tag your Tweets–#GOPcaucusCO to participate in and follow the conversation. Consider supporting and [...]

A thought for a Sunday

by Al Maurer | 10:29 am, March 14, 2010

I’m reading Tom G. Palmer’s Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice.  It is a collection of essays about freedom, liberty, and rights in the classic Western tradition.  I can’t help but think that if our lawyers read even a few of these essays we would not have judges who felt they could write law [...]

Will Ken Buck, Tea Partiers denounce ‘Taxpayers for Liberty’?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 7:09 pm, March 13, 2010

A secretive group that’s apparently backing U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck is drawing fire from fellow Rocky Mountain Alliance blogger Ben DeGrow. He’s tried to find out who’s behind Taxpayers for Liberty because he thinks they’re using some “sleazy” tactics in their campaign against GOP candidate Jane Norton, the leader in the Senate race. The usually mild-mannered DeGrow doesn’t have a candidate in this race as far as I know. But he thinks it’s time for Buck and the leaders of Tea Party, 9.12 and other conservative groups to denounce the TFL. Based on his reporting so far, I think that would be a good idea, and it should happen before Tuesday’s caucuses. The TFL’s ads are backfiring on Buck, and if it doesn’t clean up its act and tell us who is backing it, Buck will pay the price. Unlike the print and TV media, bloggers follow their stories with frequent updates. And as the story grows, others join in. DeGrow’s story already has been syndicated to http://www.RockyMountainRight.com and to http://www.PeoplesPressCollective.com. So it’s imperative for Buck that this nonsense stop now! His very clean reputation is at stake. I’ve found the TFL attacks on Norton very misleading and unfair even though I don’t have a candidate in the U.S. Senate race. They’ve hurt Buck more than they’ve helped him.

Time to Denounce Taxpayers for Liberty: Sleazy Tactics & Shadowy Group

by Ben DeGrow | 5:29 pm, March 13, 2010

Update, 3/17: More to the story: Sue Rehg of Larimer County explains the unfortunate tale of how her name got connected with Taxpayers for Liberty.
Earlier this week I introduced you to the mysterious Taxpayers for Liberty group and their survey results mailing on the U.S. Senate race:
Suffice it to say, the group Taxpayers for Liberty [...]

What is PERA hiding?

by Natalie | 12:46 pm, March 13, 2010

Recent news that the Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA) needs a $24 – $30 billion dollar bailout from taxpayers aroused my curiosity. My unusual hobby is requesting the spending and salary information of various government entities. I post the information on my website, www.nataliementen.com, in a searchable database for others to use and analyze. I [...]

If Obamacare passes…

by Al Maurer | 11:20 am, March 13, 2010

It seems touch-and-go.  The White House, using a predictable basketball analogy, calls it a “jump ball.” One day I hear Pelosi has the votes, the next day I hear she doesn’t.  Grass roots liberty organizations encourage us to call, write, fax or visit our congressional representative yet again to register once more our unalterable opposition.
Been, [...]

Clear The Bench Colorado continues the Grassroots Revival – today at Vail Valley 9.12 Project

by CTBC Director | 9:12 am, March 13, 2010

The resurgence of “We The People” in the form of local citizens banding together in grassroots civic action organizations to defend our constitutional rights is THE continuing political story of the year 2010 in America…
Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold is both proud and humbled to have been invited as a guest speaker to several such [...]

Letter to my state Representative about mandatory maternity coverage

by Rossputin | 8:41 am, March 13, 2010

Representative Levy,

I urge you to vote against the tremendously misguided bill (HB10-1021) which will require that insurance policies cover maternity and contraception.  There is no reason that people who will never have kids or never have more kids (like me and my wife) should have to pay for insurance which covers very expensive health care that we’ll never need.

If people want coverage for maternity, they can choose a policy which covers it…as we did before we had children.

This bill will increase the health insurance cost for people like me for absolutely no reason other than “feel-good” nannyism which will inevitably have negative unintended consequences.  Indeed, the most likely effect of this bill will be to increase the number of uninsured in Colorado as people are priced out of coverage.

A quote from a study about the likely effects of a maternity mandate in California:

In the case of maternity services, we estimated a 13 percent premium increase on average among the 44,000 individuals (male and female) ages 25–39 who currently purchase individual policies, because premiums are typically age related, but do not differ by gender. Based on Lewin’s estimated elasticity of demand for insurance, we predicted that a 13 percent increase in premiums among this age 25-39 group would produce a 3.4 percent increase in the uninsured – about 1,900 additional uninsured Californians, of whom about 12 percent would be eligible for Medi-Cal.

How would you feel if government forced car insurance companies to cover you for driving a Ferrari even though you knew you were never going to drive one, and that change costing you a couple thousand dollars a year?

This is truly the Nanny State at its most disgustingly intrusive.  I realize you’re generally on-board with Nanny State policies, but I hope you will find a way to oppose this costly and unnecessary legislation.

Ross Kaminsky

What Colorado Tea Party, 9.12 groups want to do at the caucuses

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:36 am, March 13, 2010

Nancy Lofholm’s Denver Post article, “Tea Party groups aim to storm caucuses, shake up system,” looks like a fair and professionally reported story that Colorado conservatives will be reading today. That these groups are relatively unorganized and that their followers aren’t contributing to candidates they support still looks like a big problem for those candidates. Gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes and U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck have strong followings among these groups. But their fundraising and organization pales in comparison with gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis and Senate candidate Jane Norton. The caucuses won’t decide who the Republican’s candidates will be. The August 10 primary, where money and organization count, will pick the nominees. What seems important is that these groups already have won. They’ve made themselves heard, and they are making all conservative candidates sound more conservative than ever. Whether that will help Republicans win in November remains to be seen. At the momement, the Democrats are making conservative Republicans look very attractive to independents. And independents will decide the general elections.

Progressives vs. immigrants: the Bakeshop Act & Lochner v. New York

by Brian T. Schwartz | 12:58 am, March 13, 2010

I’d like to see a book or long article that describes how organized interests gain at others’ expense from political mandates and controls that look benevolent on the surface.  (They probably exist, and feel free to suggest any.)  For example, consider what Damon Root at Reason magazine writes about “progressive” legislation that limits legal work [...]

Pelosi’s betting she can pass ObamaCare; if she can’t, she wants to be done with it

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 11:20 pm, March 12, 2010

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is betting against heavy odds that she can get House Democrats to commit political suicide and pass the Senate’s version of Obamacare. Mike Barone and others are predicting she won’t have the votes. That means only one thing. She wants to get Obamacare off her plate one way or another. It’s just too big of a political liability to carry into November.  

Will John Hickenlooper Answer Tough Questions on FasTracks Fabrication?

by Ben DeGrow | 6:25 pm, March 12, 2010

The Antiplanner blog — experts on all things related to transportation — has posted a question (several, really) for Democrat gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper to answer:
Based on what we know today, including 40 percent cost overruns, revenue shortfalls, and the trivial amount of congestion relief that FasTracks is expected to provide, would you still have [...]

Does CEA Care More About School Funding or Political Allies?

by Ben DeGrow | 12:05 pm, March 12, 2010

This article was originally posted at Ed News Colorado.
Sure, the Colorado Education Association loves to increase funding for K-12 schools and retain member jobs. But sometimes, its pleas for school funding simply don’t add up. Yesterday’s CEA blog entry “Amazon: play fair, support school funding” is just such an example:

In other words, Amazon firing its [...]

Bill Ritter’s Quality Teaching Blue Ribbon Commission Cause for Concern

by Eddie | 10:30 am, March 12, 2010

Ed News Colorado has a story about yesterday’s first meeting of Governor Bill Ritter’s Council for Educator Effectiveness:

Thursday’s session, held at the Lowry headquarters of the state Community College System, was the usual first-meeting mix of introductions, setting expectations and deciding on a future meeting schedule.
The introductions gave some hints of how individual members are [...]

We Told You So – Transportation Edition VIDEO!

by Jon Caldara | 10:29 am, March 12, 2010

Don Boudreaux: Bias against those who don’t pay for things

by Rossputin | 8:58 am, March 12, 2010

[Reposted with better formatting…]

My friend Don Boudreaux penned such an excellent letter to Dear Leader Barack Obama that I feel compelled to share it with you here (even though I know quite a few of my readers are on Don’s distribution list).  If any of you would like to be added to Don’s list, please e-mail me and I’ll put the names together and forward them to him.

8 March 2010

Mr. Barack Obama
President, Executive Branch
United States Government
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Obama:

CBS radio news this morning ran a clip of one of your recent speeches. In it, you criticize insurance companies because they “ration coverage according to who can pay and who can’t.”

My first thought was “not exactly; coverage is rationed according to who PAYS and who doesn’t.” Ability to pay isn’t the same thing as actually paying, and what insurers care about is the latter. Many folks – especially young adults – have the ability to pay but choose not to do so. They get no coverage.

But further pondering of your point leads me to look beyond such nit-picking to see fascinating possibilities. Not only insurers, but all producers who greedily refuse to supply persons who don’t pay should be set aright. Now I’m sure that YOU don’t ration the supply of the books you write according to any criteria as sordid as requiring people actually to pay for them. But our society is full of people less enlightened than you.

For example, the typical worker rations his labor services according to who pays and who doesn’t. That must stop. Oh, and supermarkets! Every single one rations groceries according to who pays. Likewise with restaurants, clothing stores, home-builders, furniture makers, even lawyers! You name it, rationing is done according to who pays. Indeed, my own county government has been corrupted by this greedy attitude: if I don’t pay my taxes, the sheriff takes my house – effectively booting me out of the county merely because I didn’t pay for its services.

Preposterous!

I look forward to your changing this selfish and unfair system of rationing that for too long now has kept Americans impoverished.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

The Amazon Tax and the Affiliates Amendment

by Ari Armstrong | 8:56 am, March 12, 2010

Amazon dropped its Colorado Associates because the company reasonably expects that it is only the Associates program which may grant Colorado authority to subject the company to Colorado tax laws.Various people have wrongly argued that, because the ame…

Colorado Democrat tax scheme hits home

by Rossputin | 6:51 am, March 12, 2010

I had recently signed up for the Amazon Associates program by which I would try to “monetize” a bit of value from my web site traffic by hosting some ads for Amazon.com on my site, being paid for “click-thrus”.  Specifically, I would have hosted links/ads for books I like or live, and think important or entertaining, such as some of the books I’ve reviewed on these pages.

On Monday, I received the following e-mail from Amazon Associates:

Dear Colorado-based Amazon Associate:

We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to inform you that the Colorado government recently enacted a law to impose sales tax regulations on online retailers. The regulations are burdensome and no other state has similar rules. The new regulations do not require online retailers to collect sales tax. Instead, they are clearly intended to increase the compliance burden to a point where online retailers will be induced to “voluntarily” collect Colorado sales tax – a course we won’t take.

We and many others strongly opposed this legislation, known as HB 10-1193, but it was enacted anyway. Regrettably, as a result of the new law, we have decided to stop advertising through Associates based in Colorado. We plan to continue to sell to Colorado residents, however, and will advertise through other channels, including through Associates based in other states.

There is a right way for Colorado to pursue its revenue goals, but this new law is a wrong way. As we repeatedly communicated to Colorado legislators, including those who sponsored and supported the new law, we are not opposed to collecting sales tax within a constitutionally-permissible system applied even-handedly. The US Supreme Court has defined what would be constitutional, and if Colorado would repeal the current law or follow the constitutional approach to collection, we would welcome the opportunity to reinstate Colorado-based Associates.

You may express your views of Colorado’s new law to members of the General Assembly and to Governor Ritter, who signed the bill.

Your Associates account has been closed as of March 8, 2010, and we will no longer pay advertising fees for customers you refer to Amazon.com after that date. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned prior to March 8, 2010, will be processed and paid in accordance with our regular payment schedule. Based on your account closure date of March 8, any final payments will be paid by May 31, 2010.

We have enjoyed working with you and other Colorado-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program, and wish you all the best in your future.
Best Regards,

The Amazon Associates Team

My take is the following:  The original legislation, before the Dems changed the words to the current law, would have said that having Associates in Colorado would be taken to mean that Amazon has a physical presence in Colorado and that all Amazon.com sales in Colorado would then be subject to state sales tax.  Amazon understands that this is really where the legislature wants to go and doesn’t want to take the chance even though the legislation is written to appear to apply to multi-chain corporations where some chain(s) operate in Colorado and some don’t.

Amazon wasn’t fooled by the legislation…and neither were readers of these pages, nor many of the other fine conservative or libertarian Colorado blogs who discussed the issue.

Not that I ever expected to make a lot of money from my Amazon Associates participation, but let’s just think about the effect that the legislation has already had:  Amazon will avoid being trapped by the legislation, so the state will collect no sales tax from Coloradoans’ purchases from Amazon.com.  However, think of who is hurt by the fact that my Associates account was closed.

I lost the opportunity for income.  I and my readers lost the opportunity for me to easily guide my readers to buy books that they might enjoy or find important.  The publishers and authors lost potential profits/royalties from book sales.  Fewer book sales cost jobs at publishing houses. And so on…

I am not trying to overstate my obviously limited impact in this story.  But in the aggregate, killing all Colorado Amazon Associates account probably does add to to something measurable.

It’s only liberals who believe that people won’t change their behavior when regulations and taxes change.  It’s only a liberal who could have thought that their bone-headed law would have not caused every business which could avoid being trapped by it to do just that.

Because of their utter inability to cut state spending across the board, as rationally suggested by Colorado Republican legislators, the Democrats have done damage to citizens of their state and elsewhere.

Let them reap the whirlwind in November…and let the next legislature repeal this idiotic law (along with the “dirty dozen” tax increases passed with the signature of Lame Duck Bill Ritter.)

 

We Told You So: Transportation Edition

by Jon Caldara | 6:10 am, March 12, 2010

It’s a transportation policy wonk-fest on tonight’s Independent Thinking. I will be joined by Chuck Plunkett from the Denver Post, and Randal O’Toole, director of the Independence Institute’s Center for the American Dream and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. Tune in for a lively discussion about trains, buses and automobiles, and the future [...]

Don Boudreaux: Bias against those who don’t pay for things

by Rossputin | 5:58 am, March 12, 2010

My friend Don Boudreaux penned such an excellent letter to Dear Leader Barack Obama that I feel compelled to share it with you here (even though I know quite a few of my readers are on Don’s distribution list).  If any of you would like to be added to Don’s list, please e-mail me and I’ll put the names together and forward them to him.

8 March 2010

Mr. Barack ObamaPresident, Executive BranchUnited States Government1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. Obama:

CBS radio news this morning ran a clip of one of your recent speeches.  In it, you criticize insurance companies because they "ration coverage according to who can pay and who can't."

My first thought was "not exactly; coverage is rationed according to who PAYS and who doesn't."  Ability to pay isn't the same thing as actually paying, and what insurers care about is the latter.  Many folks - especially young adults - have the ability to pay but choose not to do so.  They get no coverage.

But further pondering of your point leads me to look beyond such nit-picking to see fascinating possibilities.  Not only insurers, but all producers who greedily refuse to supply persons who don't pay should be set aright.  Now I'm sure that YOU don't ration the supply of the books you write according to any criteria as sordid as requiring people actually to pay for them.  But our society is full of people less enlightened than you.

For example, the typical worker rations his labor services according to who pays and who doesn't.  That must stop.  Oh, and supermarkets!  Every single one rations groceries according to who pays.  Likewise with restaurants, clothing stores, home-builders, furniture makers, even lawyers!  You name it, rationing is done according to who pays.  Indeed, my own county government has been corrupted by this greedy attitude: if I don't pay my taxes, the sheriff takes my house - effectively booting me out of the county merely because I didn't pay for its services.

Preposterous!

I look forward to your changing this selfish and unfair system of rationing that for too long now has kept Americans impoverished.

Sincerely,Donald J. BoudreauxProfessor of EconomicsGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, VA 22030

CNN: Doctors opt out of Medicare

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, March 12, 2010

Should we expect more of this if politicians expand government-run health programs? From CNN:
When you think of low-paying jobs, doctor doesn’t usually come to mind.But with a 21% cut in Medicare payments slated to take effect later this month, physicians who say they are making an OK living may be reduced to [...]

PPC-SPAN | Colorado Congressional District 4 Debate

by admin | 9:35 pm, March 11, 2010

CD 4 Debate Part 1 Bob Moore of the Coloradoan has a recap of last night’s debate–Referendum C was the biggest split between the four candidates, with Tom Lucero and Diggs Brown explaining their 2005 support, and Dean Madere and Cory Gardner criticizing those decisions. Complete video after the jump . . .

One State Down 49 to Go, ACORN ordered OUT of Ohio

by Mr. Bob | 2:45 pm, March 11, 2010

#acorn #redco #teaparty #tco

ACORN is out of Ohio’s elections

In legal settlement, group agrees not to return to state
Thursday, March 11, 2010 2:53 AM
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

ACORN, the liberal group notorious for allegedly trying to inflate voter rolls through fraudulent practices, has seen its last election in Ohio.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now will permanently surrender its Ohio business license by June1 as part of a legal settlement with the conservative Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, both sides said yesterday.

ACORN was active in Ohio in the 2006 and 2008 elections, working to register thousands of low-income people to vote and get them to the polls. The group’s efforts were marred by irregularities, including one case in which ACORN workers allegedly induced a Cleveland man to register to vote 72 times, offering cigarettes as an incentive.

Read the rest at the Columbus Dispatch.

Colorado Democrats Want to Continue Using Taxpayer Dollars to Promote Themselves

by Mr. Bob | 1:09 pm, March 11, 2010

#redco #tcot #teaparty #localteaparty
From Colorado Senate News.

COLORADO SENATE REPUBLICANS Dems kill proposed ban on elected official promotions

On a party-line vote, Democrats defeated Senate Bill 105, which would have protected taxpayer money from being used to promote elected officials.

“It is important that our citizens know we never use their money to promote ourselves,” said Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, who sponsored the measure. “We all have campaign funds for that reason.”

The state’s top economists have found that Colorado’s elected officials have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting themselves and their official duties over the past year. In January, an Associated Press report revealed that Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter spent over $200,000 to pay for photographs, videos and TV ads promoting his accomplishments. State Treasurer Cary Kennedy also used her office budget to run TV ads informing the public of the “Great Colorado Payback,” and she featured herself prominently in the commercials.

Cadman said under his bill the state could still spend money informing citizens of the kind of services that are available to them, but elected officials would just be prohibited from making themselves the centerpiece of the promotion.

“Taxpayer funded public service promotions should never be public servant promotions,” Cadman said.

Tax Foundation Takes On Amazon Tax

by Ari Armstrong | 12:28 pm, March 11, 2010

Yesterday I wrote a lengthy article about the Amazon Tax. In this follow-up I review an important new study from the Tax Foundation, “‘Amazon Tax’ Laws Signal Business Unfriendliness and Will Worsen Short-Term Budget Problems.”Note that, in my previous…

Big Cost to Fixing Up Colorado Schools? Time to Think Outside the Box

by Eddie | 10:39 am, March 11, 2010

Ed News Colorado reports from yesterday’s State Board meeting about the state of school buildings:

Colorado schools have $17.8 billion in maintenance and renovation needs over the next eight years, according to a statewide schools facilities study released Wednesday.
The study, required as part of the 2008 Building Excellent Schools Today law, was the first-ever comprehensive structural [...]

Is Harry Reid just a misunderstood genius?

by Rossputin | 7:41 am, March 11, 2010

The Harry Reid follies continue…or are they really the actions of an unrecognized true genius.  The latter could be true if you accept the maxim, often ascribed to F. Scott Fitzgerald, that “the true test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time.”

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that he supports efforts by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) to try to change filibuster rules in the Senate’s next session.

Just one month ago, Reid was singing a different tune.  According to the Washington Post’s February 11th article, “Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday dismissed an effort by some Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, saying the chamber’s procedures were designed to prevent the majority party from unilaterally changing the rules.”

The Post also noted that “in 2005…Reid fiercely defended the minority’s right to filibuster and argued that the Senate was bound by its past rules until the supermajority acted to change them.”

Reid is getting desperate, for himself and for The One.  Senate rules and history be damned.

While it’s unlikely that these moves will succeed since at least a few Democrat senators recognize that they will not always – indeed, maybe not even next year – be in the majority, one has to wonder at just how far out of touch the Democrat leadership is with the American electorate.

“Progressives”, which is to say the far left of the Democrat Party, care nothing for principle.  They are strictly utilitarian, willing to say and do one thing today and the opposite tomorrow if they believe it gets them a step closer to their desired socialist utopia.

In case you don’t believe me, here’s a great example from the wacky-left Daily Kos: “Obviously, unrestrained majority rule is not a good idea, but when you’re dealing with policies like the current health care proposal – as opposed to issues involving constitutional rights, such as the power to declare war or the freedom of speech – majority rule is the American way.”

Huh?  What part of taking over 1/6th of the American economy, spending our children in to bankruptcy, and wrecking the health care system that’s the envy of the world does not impinge on multiple Constitutional rights, not least the fact that it’s patently unconstitutional to require someone to buy something (insurance) as a condition of citizenship? That and other constitutional questions surround ObamaCare, including a few discussed HERE.

And what part of American history says that rules for making laws should be different based on whether a particular person or group claims that an issue is fundamentally about the constitution or just about insignificant things like your health? The blogger is, like all Progressives, utterly utilitarian, making any feeble excuse to change the rules to get his way. You can only imagine the bloody murder he’d be screaming if Republicans were talking about eliminating the filibuster as a tactic to pass an abortion ban or a repeal of gun rights restrictions.

The true Progressives, though, are a minority of the Democrat Party (even if a majority of their leadership) and a very small minority of Americans.

Real Americans, on the other hand, tend to be at least slightly more principle-oriented and react much more negatively to transparent attempts by anyone from politians to businesses to casinos to change the rules of the game when it becomes clear that those politicians or businesses or casinos are not winning the game.  If you can’t win the game, change it until you can.  No Sale, Harry.

If Democrats are able to effectively gut the filibuster next year (they can’t do it this year because that rule change which takes only a majority at the beginning of a Senate session would take 67 votes during a session), it would all but guarantee that Democrats lose their majority in the Senate in 2012 if they don’t lose it in 2010.  But the leadership doesn’t care if it means they can pass the most sweeping leftist legislation in two generations and help care for the legacy of their beloved Dear Leader, Barack “Pass Anything, Please!” Obama.

Reid’s move is politically questionable as well.  Threatening to change the rules to get their way will be yet another argument made against Democrat Senate candidates in the upcoming election.  Furthermore, with Democrats in the electorate likely to care about “fairness”, seeing their own party try to rig the game could demotivate Democrat voters and allow on-the-bubble Senators like Barbara Boxer to be beaten. One can only hope.

It’s also funny to hear Reid throw more of his own blood in the water: Schumer and Durbin are both interested in eliminating the filibuster because they see a decent chance of Democrats having a one- or two-vote majority in the next Senate…and an even better chance of Harry Reid having been returned to civilian life.

Schumer and Reid are sharks tearing at the twitching but not yet lifeless body of Harry Reid and all Reid is doing is bleeding a little more.  Hardly a good way to stop a shark.

In fairness, if Reid is a genius then so is President Obama.  Obama and his henchman, David Axelrod, have called for an “up or down vote”, code for bypassing a filibuster.  But in 2005, when Republicans stupidly tried a similar move, Obama said “majoritarian absolute power (is) not what the Framers intended.”

Obama was right in 2005 and Reid was right just a month ago.  Given their current efforts to destroy the filibuster, perhaps nobody but their far-left fringe socialist base or F. Scott Fitzgerald would be proud.

Colo. Springs Candidate Forum Goes to Ken Buck, Dan Maes, J.J. Ament

by Ben DeGrow | 6:46 am, March 11, 2010

Tuesday night featured another in the latest of well-attended grassroots debate sponsored by conservative or pro-liberty groups: Candidate Debate 2010 in Colorado Springs. It got the attention of one Colorado Pols diarist, and made for a couple humorous anecdotes reported by the Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels.
After the forum — which included Colorado candidates for U.S. [...]

The left continues to eat their own…

by Rossputin | 5:02 am, March 11, 2010

The radical leftist ACLU is challenging President Obama’s hint that they may return Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the military tribunal system.  It’s amusing to watch the left’s circular firing squad…a strategy of failure which is normally reserved for Republicans.

Please see my article for Human Events:
ACLU Assaults Obama on KSM Trial

(Some of you may have noticed that my postings this week have been short, or have been guest-postings, or otherwise somewhat easier for me to produce than my usual work. The reason is that I am on a week-long ski trip with my 4-year old daughter in Utah and I’m trying to keep my typing to a minimum…)

« 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