POTUS and VPOTUS celebrate earthday by flying separately to the same location

by Mr. Bob | 4:02 pm, April 26, 2010

#tcot #earthday #globalwarming #teaparty

Vote Denver School of Science and Technology for Obama Commencement

by Eddie | 12:50 pm, April 26, 2010

From today through Thursday, you have the chance to help decide where President Obama gives a high school commencement address later this year. Why should you care? Besides some hint of local pride from my fellow Coloradans, that is.
Because as David Greenberg points out on the Ed News Colorado blog, one of the six [...]

Sedition

by Al Maurer | 12:00 pm, April 26, 2010

There was an interesting moment on MSNBC last week where Joe Klein, a journalist, said I looked up the definition of sedition which is conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state. And a lot of these statements, especially the ones coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent [...]

Second Amendment Supporters Respond to Bloomberg’s Anti-gun Ad Campaign

by Mike Krause | 11:26 am, April 26, 2010

According to the Daily News, New York City’s multi-millionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun-grabbing mayors group is dropping a cool quarter-million dollars for an ad campaign, including one in Colorado, to pimp Bloomberg-supported federal legislation to close the alleged “gun show loophole.”  But it is not all smooth sailing
Last Tuesday (April 20)  Denver defense attorney Jeralyn [...]

“Mary-Mandering” – Redistricting by courts in Colorado gets boost from Colorado Legislature, updating political lexicon

by CTBC Director | 9:12 am, April 26, 2010

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” — Mark Twain (1866)
The Colorado Legislature is still in session – so our lives, liberty, and property (and our Constitution) remain under threat.  Many of the worst threats against our constitutional rights are being aided and abetted by the Colorado Supreme [...]

John Hickenlooper, Scott McInnis disclose parts of their income histories

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:37 am, April 26, 2010

Over the weekend, Democrat bloggers mocked Republican Scott McInnis for not disclosing his income tax returns even though he gave the Denver Post a look at the first couple of pages of his returns. McInnis said he was not opening his tax returns because the information in them would be used against him, and he wanted to protect the privacy of friends and family who had done deals with him over the years.
What will Democrats say about Denver’s Democrat Mayor John Hickenlooper, also a candidate for governor, who this morning released parts of his tax returns for all but one of the last 23 years while keeping sections secret to protect the privacy of friends and family who had done deals with him over the years?
There is no question that Hickenlooper is being more open than McInnis is. But will voters care that Hickenlooper is more open and transparent than McInnis as long as the latter provides some information? Will the Democrats and the media be able to pry more information out of either candidate by making an issue of their selective disclosures?
Simply put, both Hickenlooper and McInnis are rags to riches stories except when they aren’t.
Hickenlooper, for example, came to Colorado with a master’s degree, got good jobs, got laid off and apparently still had enough money to buy 37% of his first brewpub. In his second year in business, he received dividends of $9,464. That means either that the brewpub paid a nice 20% to 30% dividend on an investment of $47,320 to $31,547 or he earned a dividend of, say, 3% on a portfolio of about $315,466. Another scenario could be that because he was the idea guy, he got 37% of the business without putting up much money and other investors put up all of the cash and collateral.
Hickenlooper used his smarts, charm and community organizing skills to get rich.
Same goes for McInnis. He had a law degree and practice by the time he was in his mid to late 20s, and he married a smart lady who just happened to be the daughter of the owner of a big old storied ranch in northwest Colorado.
McInnis used his smarts, charm and political connections to get rich.
The point is that someone who starts his career with a college degree or masters degree is not a rags to riches story. When you’re born into a family and environment that encourages you to get an education and you are healthy, energetic, ambitious and smart enough to get advanced degrees, you’re born lucky and rich.
Both guys are pretty much self-made, hard workers and luckier than 99% of the people they want to govern.
So, who do you want for governor? Will you vote for a rich Obama Democrat who doesn’t mind paying high taxes and taxing people not as fortunate as he is, or will you vote for a rich conservative Republican who believes in keeping taxes low so that big and small businesses will grow and bring new jobs to Colorado?
LINKS:
McInnis’ public disclosures show broad income, investments, by Karen E. Crummy.
Returns show rags-to-riches rise of Denver Mayor, by Karen E. Crummy.

GM and Obama: Cut from the same cloth

by Rossputin | 8:02 am, April 26, 2010

What do General Motors and Barack Obama have in common?  The fact that they’re both controlled by unions and the fact that they both lie about how taxpayer money is and will be used.

A few days ago, GM was beating its chest, proclaiming that the company is selling lots of cars and implying that such sales are the reason GM was able to repay a multi-billion dollar government loan several years early.

However, the truth appears to be that GM simply took money from TARP escrow funds to pay down the other government loan, keeping its hands deep in the taxpayers’ pockets.

It’s also worth noting that GM has an outstanding note (debt) to the United Auto Workers union at a higher interest rate than the government loan.  What responsible business pays down their low-interest debt first?  Perhaps a business that knows it’s sucking the blood from taxpayers and wants to keep paying the union 9% when the union knows it would be all but impossible to earn 9% anywhere else.  (I’m not saying that 9% is an unreasonable rate for a loan that risky, by the way.  I am saying that to the extent GM actually has free cash flow to pay down debt, they should pay down the high-interest rate debt first.)

GM realizes that its biggest shareholder is the government, namely Barack Obama and not the people of the United States.  Thererfore, they know they’ll have support to burn taxpayer dollars in order to enrich the UAW and they know that they’ll have Democrats behind them when they lie about it.

DYNCORP – Still Making A Killing

by Chuck Moe | 6:56 am, April 26, 2010

You may have heard that Cerebus Capital Investment recently purchased DynCorp. Dyncorp was a publicly traded DOD contractor that has been awarded billions of dollars for a myriad of defense contracts in Iraq, Afganistan, the Balkans, and other hot vacation spots. Cerebus Capital Management LP has a track record of making investments in a variety of dubious enterprises so the…

‘Transparency Trojan Horse’ heads to Senate

by Amy Oliver | 5:54 am, April 26, 2010

Coloradans are just a senate vote and Governor’s signature away from losing complete control over who has access to their private medical records.  On Friday, HB 1330 the All Payer Database passed out of the Senate Appropriations committee along a party line vote and is headed to the full Senate.
In a March press release Independence [...]

Lindsey Graham looking for a way out?

by Rossputin | 5:48 am, April 26, 2010

Over the weekend, RINO Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pulled his support for an economically disastrous “energy” bill after Senate Majority Leader Harry “Lame Duck” Reid (D-NV) suggested the Senate would soon take up an immigration bill.  While Graham’s public argument was that taking up immigration would mean the “energy” bill wouldn’t get proper treatment, his move is probably based on more fundamental politics, especially since Graham is also one of the Democrats’ few reliable allies on immigration.

Perhaps Graham is finally hearing the voices of the citizens of his state screaming that they don’t want cap-and-trade in any form, whether a bogus cap-and-dividend plan or a carbon tax – ideas so bad that even the French recently dropped them.  Whenever Graham and his partners in crime, John Kerry (D-France) and Joe Lieberman (“They think I’m a moderate” – CT), talk about the bill, they always give away the real game by taking about “energy and climate”.  As if legislation passed by the US Senate can have any impact on climate.  Give me a break.  Graham’s one of the few people left in America, and one of probably a half-dozen Republicans in the whole country who think that a bill he co-authors will be about anything other than income redistribution and government picking winners and losers in the energy industry.

Perhaps Graham realizes that just because his next election is 2012 instead of 2010 does not mean the people will forget his stabbing them in the back in the name of “bipartisanship” by the time those 2 1/2 years roll around.

As far as immigration goes, one can read the writing on the wall when “moderate” Republican Jan Brewer of Arizona decided to sign a controversial new illegal immigration enforcement law which allows law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they suspect of being in the state illegally.  Brewer knew that she would certainly lose the Republican primary if she didn’t sign the bill.

That said, I’m not at all certain that aggressive anti-illegal immigration legislation is a big winner for Republicans right now.  After all, J.D. Hayworth was among the group of Republican congressmen who lost reelection in 2006 after running campaigns in which they made opposing illegal immigration their signature issue.  Indiana’s Mike Sodrel, who is trying to get back into Congress in the 2010 election, was another such candidate.  Republicans need to be very careful how they handle immigration. After all, the reason Democrats are pushing the issue is because they believe they can create a new consistent block of several million new voters by passing amnesty-in-all-but-name.  While I am not a Tancredo-style immigration hawk, i.e. I support increased legal immigration as well as creating a migrant worker visa program, Republicans need to be very smart about how this issue is dealt with.  Given his buying into the cult of global warming, it’s clear that Lindsey Graham is unqualified for anything that requires such intellect.

It should also be noted that it’s a strange time for Democrats to push for immigration legislation.  An economic downturn leaves anything less than the most “conservative” legislation open to demagoguing about immigrants taking Americans’ jobs.  The economics of that claim are silly, but it’s still powerful and it means that Reid is very likely to lose at least one or two Senate Democrats if a bill which could be painted as creating anything close to amnesty were to come up for a vote.  In other words, if the Democrats push aside “climate” legislation to work on buying Hispanic votes with immigration legislation, they’re likely to accomplish neither.  While that is of course OK with me, I’d also caution that we shouldn’t be too confident; after all, most people thought Obamacare was dead as well.

I think that part of the reason the Democrats want to move on immigration is to motivate Hispanic voters in California where a low Hispanic turnout could mean the end of the Senate career for Barbara Boxer, a silly narcissistic leftist whose positions leave you wondering if she might just be Lindsey Graham in drag.  Hmmmm…are those two actually ever seen in the same room at the same time?  Just wondering…

Going back to the premise of this article:  Is Graham’s backing away from the “energy and climate” bill actually based on a Graham version of a principle or is it pure politics?  Is he looking for a way to untie himself from the incredibly unpopular policies of energy taxes and amnesty to save his political career?  My best guess is no.  He really wants to pass that stuff and is really trying to figure out a way to do it.  He knows that going to immigration first probably means nothing will pass.  He is essentially working for the Democrats.

One last note: It will be very interesting to see whether Republicans give Dems the votes they need to proceed with their financial reform bill.  The timing first of charges against Goldman and then the leak of internal Goldman e-mails all of which tend to make the firm look like greedy white-collar criminals and therefore to gin up public support for attacking all financial firms is beyond suspicious.  Senator Richard Shelby (D-AL) seems to be working with Chris Dodd (D-CT) to reach a compromise.  Perhaps Shelby thinks that financial companies are so unpopular that being the “Party of No” on this issue could backfire against the Republicans.  I think that is a mistake and that the Republicans should refuse to let the Dems pass a bill while explaining to the public how all the Democrats’ plans will raise the cost of living for everyone while making bailouts a permanent fixture of our economy.  That said, my guess is that enough Republicans will cave in to give Obama another so-called victory at huge cost to our nation.

 

 

Transparency both pricey and priceless

by Amy Oliver | 4:38 am, April 26, 2010

Greeley Tribune editor Randy Bangert penned a column about the frustration of getting public information. He highlighted several attempts by his staff to get public information from government entities. In one case the paper requested emails between “specific” employees at the University of Northern Colorado.  UNC responded:
If you want the e-mails as requested, it will [...]

Look for Me at Mount Virtus

by Night Twister | 10:31 pm, April 25, 2010

Because I don’t have time to post regularly, I’ve decided to put my own blog on hold for awhile. It will remain up so you can view previous diaries, but I won’t be posting new content here any more, at least not for a long time. My friend and fellow blogger Ben Degrow [...]

The Colorado Senate Race

by Night Twister | 10:03 pm, April 25, 2010

Editor’s note: Please welcome RMA and PPC blogger Night Twister from his original blogging home to his new digs as a guest blogger at Mount Virtus. Look for occasional contributions from him to help make up for my low blogging output, due to extra busy-ness of late.
After reading this , this, and especially this by [...]

School bullies use your money to sue YOU!

by Amy Oliver | 10:00 pm, April 25, 2010

Cash-strapped Colorado school districts have ponied up nearly $245,000 in taxpayer dollars to fund a class action lawsuit to sue taxpayers for more money for K-12 education according to a recent Face the State article.
The Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB) and the Colorado Association of School Executives (CASE) are championing the suit, Lobato v. [...]

Ryan Frazier says immigration reform should not include amnesty

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:47 pm, April 25, 2010

Ryan Frazier, the leading GOP candidate to oppose incumbent Democrat Ed Perlmutter in Congressional district seven, told the first of his town hall meetings in Aurora Thursday evening that Congress needs to pass an immigration reform law that enforces border security laws, bans amnesty for illegal immigrants who are in the country and provides temporary work visas for seasonal workers.
People who are in the country illegally should be sent home before they are allowed to apply for permanent visas, or they should pay a “big fee” for such visas, he told about 20 people at the meeting.
Financial reform also is needed, but it shouldn’t include the $50 billion bailout fund that is or was in the bill, he said. The failed government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also should be regulated by a financial reform bill, he said. He asked why new regulatory agencies would do any better than the 20 or so agencies that failed to protect the country from the current financial crisis.
After the meeting, Frazier told me that he is 100% opposed to a value added tax, which is being promoted by President Obama and Congressional Democrats.
Frazier said he would support a simplified tax and a flat tax.
By expanding government with the stimulus bill, ObamaCare and the proposed new financial regulatory agencies, Frazier said, Congress is giving banks incentives to hire more lobbyists. Any time Congress increases the size of government, it increases the amount of money that is spent on lobbyists and the power of special interests, Frazier said.
Attorney General John Suthers will speak at Frazier’s next town hall meeting Monday, April 26, at Colorado Christian University. The meeting will start at 5 p.m. Call 303-333-7926 to find out where on the campus the meeting will be held.

Ryan Frazier says immigration reform should not include amnesty

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:47 pm, April 25, 2010

Ryan Frazier, the leading GOP candidate to oppose incumbent Democrat Ed Perlmutter in Congressional district seven, told the first of his town hall meetings in Aurora Thursday evening that Congress needs to pass an immigration reform law that enforces border security laws, bans amnesty for illegal immigrants who are in the country and provides temporary work visas for seasonal workers.
People who are in the country illegally should be sent home before they are allowed to apply for permanent visas, or they should pay a “big fee” for such visas, he told about 20 people at the meeting.
Financial reform also is needed, but it shouldn’t include the $50 billion bailout fund that is or was in the bill, he said. The failed government sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also should be regulated by a financial reform bill, he said. He asked why new regulatory agencies would do any better than the 20 or so agencies that failed to protect the country from the current financial crisis.
After the meeting, Frazier told me that he is 100% opposed to a value added tax, which is being promoted by President Obama and Congressional Democrats.
Frazier said he would support a simplified tax and a flat tax.
By expanding government with the stimulus bill, ObamaCare and the proposed new financial regulatory agencies, Frazier said, Congress is giving banks incentives to hire more lobbyists. Any time Congress increases the size of government, it increases the amount of money that is spent on lobbyists and the power of special interests, Frazier said.
Attorney General John Suthers will speak at Frazier’s next town hall meeting Monday, April 26, at Colorado Christian University. The meeting will start at 5 p.m. Call 303-333-7926 to find out where on the campus the meeting will be held.

There’s a reason it looks like Obama’s running Government Motors: it’s lying

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 8:13 pm, April 25, 2010

The mainstream media and bloggers are agog over the multi-billion dollar lies Government Motors is featuring in its latest ad. But why everyone is surprised that GM is lying that it has paid off $6.7 billion in government loans is kind of a mystery. After all, the head of GM is President Barack Obama. His government owns a majority of the equity in GM.
Turns out that GM paid off some loans from the government with other government loans. At least one lawyer thinks that the GM CEO has committed fraud with his claims.

What Was Joe Klein Thinking – Venezuela?

by Lu Busse | 7:49 pm, April 25, 2010

Press Release from The 9-12 Project National Chair 9-12 Project Chair Says Disagreeing with Government is not Sedition in America “Joe Klein and others seem determined to revive the discredited Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that nearly gutted the First Amendment in the early days of our republic,” said Yvonne Donnelly, National Chair of The [...]

Remember November

by T.L. James | 7:37 pm, April 25, 2010

The RNC may be fumbling about as it tries to puzzle out the interwebs, but the Republican Governors Association seems to be picking up the slack as far as online Republican videos go. The video is part of their Remember November website. It’s decently done, but you know it’s actually being effective when the left [...]

2007 immigration bill was a bad joke; can Congress get it right this time?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 5:39 pm, April 25, 2010

In 2007, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama supported Senators John McCain, Ted Kennedy and many Democrats in a failed effort to foist a so called immigration reform bill that was loaded with pork, written to give illegals amnesty and otherwise a disgraceful attempt to fool Americans.
Now, most of the same characters are making another attempt to change the immigration and border security laws. But, of course, the focus is on helping the illegals, not American citizens whose lives and incomes are put at risk by the shameful border security enforcement polices of the Obama administration.
Here are links to some stories about immigration reform. I’ll add more as I find them.
Arizona’s immigration frustration. Editorial. http://www.opinionjournal.com. 4.26.10.
“Nobody Wins” on immigration reform. By Nathan Martin & Kasie Hunt. 4.26.10.
Law profs on Arizona immigration bill: It’s unconstitutional. wsj.com. 
New Arizona immigration law makes sense. The Heritage Foundation.
Immigration reform’s big moment. WaPo.
Arizona’s immigration law may spur a showdown. By Nicholas Riccardi. LA Times.
Will Democrats err in immigration reforms? By Daniel Griswold. Cato Institute.
Jane Norton on immigration.
Ken Buck on immigration.
Ken Buck talks illegal immigration, hate crime laws, government spending. The Business Word, 2.16.10.
Tom Wiens on immigration.
Bennet urges Senate leadership to move on immigration reform. Sen. Bennet’s web site.
Dan Maes on immigration.
Scott McInnis and John Hickenlooper don’t address the issue specifically on their web sites.
67% say illegal immigrants are major strain on U.S. budget. Rasmussen Reports. March 23, 2010.

Chris Dodd’s financial reform bill would limit credit, kill jobs, promote corruption

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 3:20 pm, April 25, 2010

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) is being forced to retire because he allegedly took mini bribes from a mortgage bank. Yet President Barack Obama is working with Dodd to “reform” financial and credit market laws and regulations. 
It’s no surprise, then, that the Dodd bill is as intellectually corrupt as its creator. And it’s no surprise that the bill would add bureaucracies that would force large banks and manufacturers to hire more lobbyists who would pour more money into the campaign fundraisers held by presidential candidates and members of Congress. Big government is corrupt government, and the financial reform bill would make the Federal government even more corrupt than it already is. By “corrupt,” I mean that politicians work for lobbyists and special interests who contribute to their campaigns, not for their constituents and country.
Here are links to some articles that discuss the weaknesses in the financial reform legislation being pushed by Obama and Dodd:
CBO cost estimate, S. 3217, Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. CBO. 26 pp.
CBO confirms you’re on the hook for Wall Street bailout bill. The Heritage Foundation.
Democrats reach deal on tough derivative law. By Ronald D. Orol.
Financial reform’s big unknowns. By Robert J. Samuelson.
Senator Dodd’s Regulation Plan: 14 fatal flaws. By James Gattuso, The Heritage Foundation.
Dodd’s job-killer. By Mark A. Calabria, Cato Institute.
Back to basics on financial reform. By Niall Ferguson & Ted Forstmann. April 23, http://www.Opinionjournal.com.
The new master of Wall Street. Obama surveys the financial kingdom that may soon be his. Editorial. http://www.opinionjournal.com. April 23, 2010.
Crisis and ideology: The Administration’s financial reform legislation. By Peter J. Wallison, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Yes, it’s a bailout bill. By Phillip Swagel. The American, the journal of the American Enterprise Institute.
Do you have any reforms in size XL? Gretchen Morgenson, NYT.

Effective Teachers Support Accountability Bill SB 191

by Rich Bratten | 9:05 pm, April 24, 2010

I sat in on the testimony for SB 191 last week. I had signed up to testify, but the list of “star witnesses” that were scheduled to testify ran so long that I, a mere parent, never made it. Not that I mind all that much, because there was a lot of good testimony for [...]

Where Have You Been All These Years, CEA?

by Rich Bratten | 8:12 pm, April 24, 2010

I was only three sentences into CEA President Beverly Ingle’s Op-Ed in the Denver Post on April 21 when I knew I had to respond. You see, her third sentence was a poorly worded question that actually made no sense, although I could infer what it was that she meant to ask. So, after reading [...]

Boulder “SmartRegs” a dumb idea

by Brian T. Schwartz | 11:49 am, April 24, 2010

The Daily Camera reports: Thousands of landlords who rent out homes in Boulder will be forced to invest a combined millions of dollars in upgrades — costs that could be passed on through higher rent — if the city approves new energy-efficiency standards. On Thursday, the Boulder Planning Board will take up “SmartRegs,” a proposed [...]

Everybody Draw Mohammed

by Ari Armstrong | 10:43 am, April 24, 2010

Americans do not cower over death threats made against those practicing their First Amendment rights.Americans do do stand idly by while terrorist thugs treat our Bill of Rights like toilet paper.As an American, I may hate what you say, and I may loudl…

Remarks from Politics on the Rocks Colorado Springs kick-off event

by Rossputin | 4:28 am, April 24, 2010

I was privileged to be asked to be one of the two keynote speakers, along with State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, of the kick-off event for the new Colorado Springs chapter of Politics on the Rocks.  Following are the not-very-well edited remarks I offered at the gathering of informed and enthusiastic citizens.

We are in remarkable political and economic times. They are, to use a word our president is fond of, “historic”.  Unfortunately, these times are historic for all the wrong reasons and in large part due to our own Dear Leader’s life-long lack of connection with or understanding of principles of political or economic liberty, much less how to meet a payroll.  In short, my friends, everything we know about America is under assault by a president who won in part because he fooled so many people with a façade of moderation and in part because Republicans offered such an uninspiring alternative following years of their utter and obvious mismanagement of our nation’s finances.

We now have a government that owns our biggest auto company, that despite all rhetoric to the contrary is clearly determined to eliminate the private health insurance industry, that wants to put financial institutions even further under its thumb while refusing to apply similarly tough standards to the poster-children of disastrous unintended consequences, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  As if all of this isn’t bad enough, the Administration is now trying to use the EPA to regulate anything that requires energy to produce or transport.  The EPA’s astonishing power grab under the guise of CO2 as a pollutant is perhaps even more dangerous than Obamacare to the overall well-being of America.  If they get away with it, they could try to regulate everything from trucking to livestock to heating – and I guarantee you that not one proposed regulation will lower your cost of living or increase your freedom to make choices you now consider to be obviously available to you.

Beyond not-just-big-government but giant-government schemes like “cap and trade” which they will try to foist upon us by regulation, given that such an economically devastating plan can’t even get out of a Senate with 60 Democrats, there is another key point here:  The accumulation of power by unelected bureaucrats who operate most of the time without Congressional oversight.  These mini-“administrations” are part of the Executive Branch of government and it is, to put it gently, constitutionally questionable whether they can be delegated power to anything like the degree which they have been.

Members of Congress are of two minds on this, however:  On one hand, they jealously guard their power.  It’s one reason that even some Democrats are pushing back against the EPA power grab. On the other hand, they like being able to have someone else do their dirty work without getting Congress’ fingerprints on it.  There are plenty of anti-capitalist Democrats who want your fuel costs to go up, who want people to have to drive less and live in colder homes in order to “save the planet” and, most of all, who want government to wrap its tentacles even more tightly around the American public.  These competing forces (which I’d be interested to hear from Senator Penry about whether they exist in similar ways in the state government) are both sadly anti-liberty, but at the end of the day it is frequently preferable for Congress to have regulatory authority instead of the Executive Branch.

Indeed, although it is not my topic for today, I would suggest that conservatives in particular should be more suspicious of Executive Branch power.   Frequently, conservatives assume that an accumulation of power by the White House (especially if under a Republican president) is by default unobjectionable.  I would suggest it’s time – past time – for a more consistent focus on preserving liberty from assault by EVERY branch of government. If anything, attacks on liberty by the Executive are harder to overcome than those by Congress, in part because conservatives are so frequently reluctant – maybe out of respect for the office of the president – to try to address a restriction on liberty which comes from the  White House whereas they’d fight harder against the same restriction coming from Capitol Hill.

By the way, have you noticed that the FDA is now going to try to regulate the amount of salt in our diets?  Once you unleash the Nanny State, you’ll never be free until she’s bound, gagged, and tossed out with the liberals and self-interested bureaucrats who support her.

Legend has it that when the British army surrendered at Yorktown in 1781, the British Army band played a song called “The World Turned Upside-Down.”

It’s for me hard not to think of that song when we hear things from Europe such as an international vacation being declared a human right, with vacation subsidies possibly costing Europeans half a billion dollars a year if this mind-numbing plan becomes law.  And at the same time, the IMF is proposing massive new international taxes on banks, with the British chancellor saying that “The recognition that banks should make a contribution to the society in which they operate is right.”

Think about the stunning and misguided implication of that statement: that banks inherently make no contribution to society.  I wonder how many of you would be able to run your businesses or have your jobs if not for the existence of banks.  And while that particular phrase came from England, you can see similar sentiments here in discussion around the Democrats so-called financial reform bill which aims to make bailouts a permanent fixture of our economy while forcing banks to pay for the privilege of becoming too close to government-run utilities.  There’s no doubt that Wall Street often behaves badly – though the filing of fraud charges against Goldman Sachs was suspiciously timed.  But the idea that banks owe the public a debt just because they exist is not just crazy, it’s evil.  What industry is next to have to bow down to Obama?  Yours?

And the public is to a large degree buying into it.  They buy into the demonization of business, especially large business, at every turn.  They hate and distrust banks, insurance companies, oil companies, and pharmaceutical companies, just to name a few of the biggest.  And what do all those companies have in common?  That they provide a product or service without which life as we know it would be either difficult or impossible.  Again, which of you is trying to provide something that people may come to consider part of their daily lives?  If so, you’re next up against the wall.

The public buys into the idea that small business is noble but big business is evil when most of us who have started or invested in a small business did so with the deepest hope that it would one day become a big business.

And sadly, my friends and fellow entrepreneurs, we have to a large degree ourselves to blame.  Republicans and conservatives let Republicans and so-called conservatives drift into what is too commonly but also too accurately called “crony capitalism”.

Every time any one of us tries to use the power of government direct to taxpayer money to our own business, we are taking a pick-axe to the foundation of our own economic liberty.  After all, if it’s OK for one so-called capitalist to encourage government to pick winners and losers, then it’s not only that capitalist but all capitalists who lose the moral high ground from which to preach the gospel of free markets, of competition, and ultimately of liberty itself.

As economist Don Boudreaux notes, however, in response to a recent NY Times article which described capitalism as barely removed from anarchy: “Capitalism – real capitalism – is infused with law, most of which is self-enforcing.  The manufacturer who pays his suppliers late gets poorer credit terms in the future; the retailer who cheats her customers loses business; the customer who doesn’t pay his bills can no longer buy on credit.

The chief problem with crony capitalism is precisely that it injects significant amounts of anarchy into the economy, transforming capitalism into something entirely different and dysfunctional.  Under crony capitalism, government excuses the politically influential from capitalism’s laws.  Thus unleashed from the impartial discipline of the invisible hand, the politically influential become criminals who lie, rape, pillage, and plunder.  And THAT’S true anarchy.”

Don’s point is key.  When people see major economic turmoil these days, they perceive it as a failure of markets rather than what it almost always is – a failure of government.  But we, the entrepreneurial class, and – here I am going to pick on “big business” – especially the larger businesses, have laid the groundwork for this failure by injecting the cancer of crony capitalism into a free market system.

I fully understand that a businessman who is considering NOT trying to use government to his advantage might look at it as unilateral disarmament when his competitor has no such scruples.  But just as I try to teach my two young children, two wrongs don’t make a right.  So in almost every case, a businessman should not fight to suck off the government teat right next to his competitor, but rather to eliminate the involvement of government entirely.

This isn’t just a problem of business, as if that weren’t enough.  By increasing the money flowing through government, we increase the power of government and its elected and unelected employees over every aspect of our lives.  We increase the desire of those legislators and bureaucrats to stay in office, to create their own fiefdoms; we create and feed their addiction to power and to the perks of being in office.  And we thus increase the desire, even the necessity, for companies to spend so much time and money on electoral politics.

Money in politics isn’t inherently evil.  It’s inherently natural to some degree.  Amazingly, we’ve reached a situation where liberals have a real point, though, even if they don’t know it, when they talk about “getting the money out of politics.”  Money is not now going into politics with a desire to encourage good government but with a desire to use the power of government to squash competition and take taxpayer dollars.  So  if you want to get the money out of politics, you have to get politics out of money.

It’s much easier to get addicted to a drug than to kick the habit.  And it’s not going to be easy to wean businesses away from their too-cozy relationship with their dealers in government.  (I was thinking a pimp and whore analogy would be more appropriate but I couldn’t decide whether Congress was the pimp or the whore.) But as surely as heroin will kill an addict young, businesses getting into an anything-but-capitalist relationship with government will kill free markets, good government, and what little memory our nation has left of the principles enshrined in our founding documents. After all, Madison and Jefferson were men who understood that many things change over time, but human nature and therefore the nature of government are not among them.

Weekend Political Breath

by Eileen McGuire-Mahony | 4:36 pm, April 23, 2010

Political Breath has some lovely new tidbits for your perusal, where we look at etiquette, leadership, and speaking.  Good things, all. As we get our little site going, please send in your questions, comments, and muffin baskets to info@peoplespresscollective.org, with ‘Dear Political Breath’ in the subject line.

Watermelon Man Rides the Train

by Mr. Bob | 12:03 pm, April 23, 2010

#watermelonman #tcot #teaparty
The Lioness confronts Watermelon man, the worshipper of Al Gore (blessed be his name.)

Backbone Radio, April 25th, 2010: Our current Third Rail — Immigration and Race

by Rossputin | 10:02 am, April 23, 2010

Today’s Third Rail: Immigration and Race:

The constant cries of “racism” against Tea Parties and their members, while falling mostly on deaf ears of Tea Partiers who recognize the charge to be utterly bogus, nevertheless bring issues of race and immigration into the broader debate about liberty and limited government.

In this week’s show, we’ll discuss these issues and more with a fascinating line-up of people who spend much (or most) of their time thinking about them.

Please join me by listening to (and calling in to) this week’s Backbone Radio program from 5 PM to 8 PM on 710 AM KNUS in Denver and 1460 AM KZNT in Colorado Springs.

If you’re not in range of the radio waves, you should be able to listen to the show online by clicking HERE.

I hope you’ll actively participate in the conversation with me, via phone at 303 696 1971, e-mail at ross(at)710knus.com, or instant message from my site at http://rossputin.com.

While the immigration debate is usually argued between “liberals” looking for amnesty or an effective equivalent and “conservatives” who suggest closing the borders, there is an enormous space in between those positions. And in that space lies a policy which is not only best for the nation but which might allow conservatives (and by extension Republicans) to make an honest pitch for the support of new and would-be American immigrants.

Co-hosting the show with me will be Elliot Fladen. Elliot is a libertarian graduate of Stanford Law School and a former DOJ attorney in the Bush administration who advocates for a middle path on immigration between reducing legal immigration and giving citizenship to those who are here illegally. The subject of immigration is very personal to Elliot – he took his wife through the immigration process, briefly practiced immigration law himself, and frequently volunteers in outreach work with the Hispanic community.

At 5:15, we’ll be joined by Mark Krikorian, the Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a non‑profit, non‑partisan research organization in Washington, D.C. which examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center is animated by a pro‑immigrant, low‑immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted. Mr. Krikorian is one of the nation’s leading thinkers about the issue of immigration. He is the author of “The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal” (Penguin 2008) and the just published booklet “How Obama is Transforming America Through Immigration” from Encounter Books. You can see his prolific immigration-related writings at NationalReviewOnline.com.

At 6:00 PM, we’ll be joined by the controversial documentary film maker Craig Bodeker, whose films, A Conversation About Race and More of…A Conversation about Race, are thought-provoking looks into reverse-racism, namely an all-too-common assumption among Americans that the only racism in America is anti-black or anti-Hispanic and that only whites are capable of racism. It is an extremely touchy subject and I (who take full responsibility for the choice of guests for my show) recognize as much. I also recognize that a little research on Mr. Bodeker can raise as many questions as answers about where his sympathies lie. We’ll touch on all of this during what I expect to be a spirited (and perhaps occasionally tense) interview.

And at 7:00 PM, our guest for 45 minutes will be Republican candidate for US Senate, Ken Buck. As a Senate candidate, Mr. Buck has to think about national issues, not least health care and the economy. But in his job as Weld County District Attorney, he’s had more than his fair share of experience with the pros and cons of immigration, legal and illegal, including a well-publicized case in which the State Supreme Court (wrongly, in my view) ruled against his raid of a “tax and translation service” agency which was aiding and abetting identity theft by illegal aliens. Some people paint Ken Buck as “Tom Tancredo lite” when it comes to immigration, but my sense is that Buck’s position is more nuanced and more sensible. (And I say that as someone who considers Tom Tancredo a friend…)

A couple of comments for listeners: During my show two weeks ago, I asked listeners to offer questions for Jane Norton by e-mail or to call them in to the show producer and I would then ask the questions. While my intent was simply time management and while the procedure was not requested or approved by the Norton campaign, I was asked whether I was “filtering” questions. Nothing of the sort was the case. I asked Ms. Norton three of the four questions received and brought up the broader subject of the fourth question (because the question asked for a numerical answer that I knew nobody would be able to answer.) I did take more seriously, however, a comment that the radio show would be more interesting if the listeners were asking the questions themselves.

Therefore, we will allow listeners to ask questions of Ken Buck directly, but PLEASE, in the interest of the short time we get with candidates, don’t start a question with a long preamble. I will of course gladly take questions for any of the guests via e-mail or instant message as well as by phone. I should note that I did ask the Buck campaign whether they wanted this interview under the same rules I imposed for Jane Norton’s interview, but they said they were happy to have listeners interact directly with Ken. Again, I reemphasize that my posing all the questions to Jane was NOT requested by the Norton campaign. In retrospect, it was probably an error on my part to do it that way simply because of the perception it could create of my protecting a candidate when my only intent was to get to as much material as possible in the short time I had speaking with her. I believe I’ve made it quite clear in my own writings that I, like many Colorado Republicans, are still considering the interesting choices in the chase for the Republican nomination to unseat Michael “Who?” Bennet.

Again, contact info for the show: Call the studio at 303 696 1971, e-mail me at ross(at)710knus.com, or instant message from my site at http://rossputin.com.

 

Mayday! Mayday! Constitution under attack… Support Clear The Bench Colorado at the “May Day at the Runway” Fundraiser

by CTBC Director | 9:12 am, April 23, 2010

“No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” — Mark Twain (1866)
The Colorado Legislature is still in session – so our lives, liberty, and property (and our Constitution) remain under threat.  Many of the worst threats against our constitutional rights are being aided and abetted by the Colorado Supreme [...]

« 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