The Vacationing Board- Brave New Welfare

by infinity3 | 8:43 pm, April 20, 2010

Feeding my drudgereport.com addiction, I was checking the site for updates and saw this article and thought surely, this is a spoof, a joke, a satire story you’d see in the Onion, but from what I can glean, it seems like the European Union is serious…

Critics of the Tea Party

by Ari Armstrong | 2:25 pm, April 20, 2010

While Tea Partiers rallied at the Denver capitol April 15 (see the video), a few critics wandered the crowd. I interviewed Ali Mickelson from the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute and Ray Harlan of the Coffee Party.Viewers may notice that Mickelson dodg…

When It Comes to Education, We All Can Do Better Than Simply Trusting the Experts

by Eddie | 12:06 pm, April 20, 2010

Ok, let’s get something straight. Just because you name something a charter school, and even just because you give it charter-like freedoms, does not guarantee success. These schools provide an opportunity for innovation, for something outside the norm. And most importantly, they are afforded the conditions that better empower students, teachers and principals to build [...]

HB 1351 – Payday Lending in Colorado

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 9:58 am, April 20, 2010

Colorado HB 1351 would limit the interest rates “payday lenders” can charge. The bill made it out of the House, and now moves on to the Senate. Representative Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, supports the bill. According to the Denver Post (Payday-loan bill passes in House), Rep. Ferarandino said

“This is about the cycle of debt people find themselves in with payday lending. We’re allowing people to overleverage themselves, causing bankruptcies.”

In other words, we are allowing adults to make their own decisions. Rep. Ferrandino and the supporters of this bill believe they are smarter than the patrons of payday lenders, and want to stop these people from exercising their own judgment.

Oppose this bill. Support freedom.

Event invitation: Politics on the Rocks in Colorado Springs on Thursday evening

by Rossputin | 8:42 am, April 20, 2010

I’m pleased to announce that State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry and I will be the guest speakers at the “kick-off event” for the newest chapter of Politcs on the Rocks, the Colorado Springs chapter.

The event will be from 5:30 – 7:30 PM this Thurdsay, April 22nd, at Fratelli Ristorante in the Springs.

The restaurant’s address is 124 N. Nevada Ave. in the heart of downtown.

Directions and a map can be found HERE.

Politics on the Rocks is a power networking group for like-minded conservative business and community leaders to network, socialize, and hear directly from prominent politicians and successful business leaders on matters of social, economic, and public importance.

More on the event can be found at this Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/event.php?eid=112650158763850

I hope to see many of you (i.e. those who live in or near the Springs) at the event.

Stratfor: Baghdad Politics and the U.S.-Iranian Balance

by Rossputin | 7:02 am, April 20, 2010

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR

Baghdad Politics and the U.S.-Iranian Balance

April 20, 2010 | 0854 GMT

By George Friedman

The status of Iraq has always framed the strategic challenge of Iran. Until 2003, regional stability — such as it was — was based on the Iran-Iraq balance of power. The United States invaded Iraq on the assumption that it could quickly defeat and dismantle the Iraqi government and armed forces and replace them with a cohesive and effective pro-American government and armed forces, thereby restoring the balance of power. When that expectation proved faulty, the United States was forced into two missions. The first was stabilizing Iraq. The second was providing the force for countering Iran.

The United States and Iran both wanted to destroy Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime, and they collaborated to some extent during the invasion. But from there, their goals diverged. The Iranians hoped to establish a Shiite regime in Baghdad that would be under Tehran’s influence. The United States wanted to establish a regime that would block the Iranians.

The U.S. Challenge in Iraq

In retrospect, U.S. strategy in Iraq was incoherent at base. On one hand, the American debaathification program drove the Sunni community into opposition and insurgency. Convinced that they faced catastrophe from the Americans on the one side and the pro-Iranian government forming in Baghdad on the other, the Iraqi Sunni Baathists united in resistance with foreign jihadists. At the same time the Americans were signaling hostility toward the Sunnis, they also moved to prevent the formation of a pro-Iranian government. This created a war between three factions (the Americans, the Shia and the Sunnis) that plunged Iraq into chaos, shattered the balance of power with Iran and made the United States the only counterweight to the Iranians.

All of this turned what was intended to be a short-term operation into an extended war from which the United States could not extract itself. The United States could not leave because it had created a situation in which the Iranian military was the most powerful force in the Persian Gulf region. Absent the United States, the Iranians would dominate Iraq. They would not actually have to invade (Iran’s military has a limited ability to project force far from its borders in any case) to extract massive political and economic concessions from both Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula.

An unchecked Iran, quite apart from its not-yet-extant nuclear capability, represents a profound strategic threat to the balance of power in the Persian Gulf. Assuming the nuclear issue was settled tomorrow either diplomatically or through attacks, the strategic problem would remain unchanged, as the central problem is conventional, not nuclear.

The United States is set to complete the withdrawal of its combat forces from Iraq this summer, leaving behind a residual force of about 50,000 support personnel. This drawdown is according to a plan former U.S. President George W. Bush laid down in 2008, and that U.S. President Barack Obama has sped up only by a few months. Therefore, this is not a political issue but one on which there has been consensus. The reason for the withdrawal is that U.S. forces are needed in Afghanistan. Even more important, the United States has no strategic reserve for its ground forces. It has fought a two-theater, multidivisional war for seven years. The Army is stretched to the limit, and should another crisis develop elsewhere in the world, the United States would lack the land power to respond decisively.

Avoiding this potential situation requires drawing down U.S. forces from Iraq. But simply abandoning the Persian Gulf to Iranian military and political power also represents a dangerous situation for the Americans. Therefore, the United States must balance two unacceptable realities.

The only hope the United States has of attaining this balance would be to achieve some semblance of its expectations of 2003. This would mean creating a cohesive Iraqi government with sufficient military and security capabilities to enforce its will internally and to deter an attack by an Iranian force. At the very least, the Iraqis would have to be able to hold off an Iranian attack long enough to allow the United States to rush forces back into Iraq and to suppress insurgent elements from all Iraqi communities, both Sunni and Shiite. If Iraq could do the former, the Iranians likely would refrain from an attack. Iranian rhetoric may be extreme, but the Iranians are risk-averse in their actions. If Iraq could do the latter, then they eliminate Iran’s preferred mode of operations, which is covert subversion through proxies.

The issue therefore boils down to how the United States answers this question: Can the Iraqis form a coherent government in Baghdad capable of making decisions and a force capable of achieving the goals laid out above? Both the government and the force have to exist; if either one is lacking, the other is meaningless. But alongside this question are others. Does Iraq have any strategic consensus whatsoever? If so, does it parallel American strategic interests? Assuming the Iraqis create a government and build a significant force, will they act as the Americans want them to?

State vs. Faction

The United States is a country that believes in training. It has devoted enormous efforts to building an Iraqi military and police force able to control Iraq. The Americans have tried to imbue Iraq’s security forces with “professionalism,” which in the U.S. context means a force fully capable of carrying out its mission and prepared to do so if its civilian masters issue the orders. As professionals, they are the technicians of warfare and policing.

But perhaps the fundamental question of any military force, one that comes before training, is loyalty. In some militaries, the primary loyalty is to oneself. In such militaries, one joins to make a living, steal what one can and simply survive. In other militaries, the primary loyalty is not to the state, but some faction of the country, be it religious, ethnic or geographical. No one is going to give his life defending a state to which he is indifferent or even hostile, no matter how carefully trained in handling his weapon or how well-lectured he is on the question of professional responsibility. Neither of these conditions allows for a successful military in the end. A man in it for himself is not going to go into harm’s way if he can help it. A man in the military to protect his clan is not going to die to protect those to whom he has no loyalty.

The U.S. Army has trained tens of thousands of Iraqis. And Americans are great trainers. But the problem isn’t training, it is loyalty. Professionalism doesn’t imbue anyone with self-sacrifice to something alien to him.

And this is the challenge the United States faces in the Iraqi government, which like most governments, consists of many factions with diverging interests. In viable states, however, fundamental values shared by the overwhelming majority lie beneath the competing interests, be they a myth of country or of the moral principles of a constitution. It is simply not apparent that Iraqi factions have a core understanding of what Iraq should be, however, nor is it clear whether they owe their primary loyalty to the state or to some faction of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein held the state together by a complex of benefits and terror. He became the center of Iraq, and in a sense became Iraq. Once he was destroyed, Iraq’s factions went to war with each other and with the United States, pursuing goals inimical to a united Iraq. Therefore Iraq’s reconstituted military and security forces, however intermixed or homogenized they may be, still owe their individual loyalties to their factions, which will call on them to serve their people, a subset of Iraq.

The United States plans to withdraw its combat forces by the summer. Leaving aside how well-protected the remaining 50,000 noncombat troops will be, the question persists on who will hold the country together. The Iranians certainly are not eager to see the Iraqi situation resolved in favor of a government that can block Iran’s ambitions. The Iranians have longstanding relations with any number of Iraqi Shiite groups, and even with some Kurdish and Sunni groups. Iran would have every reason to do what it can to destabilize Iraq above and beyond any indigenous destabilization of Iraq in order to help shape a government it can dominate. In our view, Tehran has the tools to do this effectively.

The American leadership is certainly aware of this. It may hope or even believe that a stable Iraqi government will emerge, and it will certainly not say anything publicly that would decrease confidence in the process. But at the same time, the American leadership must privately know that the probability of a cohesive Iraqi government commanding a capable and loyal security force is far from a slam dunk.

In Search of a Plan B

Therefore, logic tells us that the United States must have a Plan B. This could be a plan to halt withdrawals. The problem with that plan is that there is no assurance that in three months or a year the core divisions of Iraq could be solved. The United States could be left without forces for a strategic reserve without any guarantee that time would solve the problem. A strategy of delay calls for some clear idea of what delay would bring.

Or the United States could complete the withdrawal on the assumption that the Iranians would not dare attack Iraq directly while the residual U.S. force remained. The problem with this strategy is that it is built on an assumption. This assumption is not unreasonable, but it is still an assumption, not a certainty. Moreover, Iran could covertly destabilize Iraq, putting U.S. forces without sufficient combat capability in harm’s way from Iranian-supplied forces. Finally, Iran’s major audience consists of the oil powers of the Arabian Peninsula. Tehran wants to show the Gulf Arabs that the United States will withdraw from Iraq regardless of potential consequences to them, reducing their confidence in the United States and forcing them to contemplate an accommodation with Iran.

Halting the withdrawal therefore poses substantial challenges, and completing the withdrawal poses even more. This is particularly the case if the United States completes the withdrawal without reaching some accommodation with Iran. But negotiating with the Iranians from a position of weakness is not an attractive option. The Iranians’ price would be higher than the United States wants to pay. Therefore, the United States would have to make some show of power to the Iranians that will convince the Iranians that they are at risk. Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities could fit the bill, but it has two drawbacks. First, the attacks might fail. Second, even if they succeeded, they would not have addressed the conventional problem.

Washington’s way forward depends upon what the American government believes the probabilities are at this point for a viable Iraqi government and security force able to suppress insurgencies, including those fomented by Iran. If the Americans believe a viable Iraqi government is a possibility, they should roll the dice and withdraw. But it is not clear from our point of view what Washington is seeing. If it believes the probability is low, the United States not only will have to halt the withdrawal, it will have to reverse it to convince the Iranians that the Americans are hypercommitted to Iraq. This might cause Tehran to recalculate, opening the door for discussion.

It is now April, meaning we are four months from the deadline for the completion of the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. In the balance is not only Iraq, but also the Iranian situation. What happens next all comes down to whether the mass of parties in Baghdad share a common foundation on which to build a nation — and whether the police and military would be loyal enough to this government to die for it. If not, then the entire edifice of U.S. policy in the region — going back to the surge — is not merely at risk, but untenable. If it is untenable, then the United States must craft a new strategy in the region, redefining relationships radically — beginning with Iran.

As with many things in life, it is not a matter of what the United States might want, or what it might think to be fair. Power is like money — you either have it or you don’t. And if you don’t, you can’t afford to indulge your appetites. If things in Baghdad work themselves out, all of this is moot. If things don’t work out, the Obama administration will be forced to make its first truly difficult foreign policy decisions.

Older Does Not Always Mean Better

by Jon Caldara | 6:24 am, April 20, 2010

Democratic Senator Mike Johnston’s “great teachers and leaders” bill has been the talk of the town the last week. Senator Johnston introduced SB 191 with a broad coalition of supporters all looking to improve outcomes in our classrooms. Senator Johnston joined education policy analyst Ben DeGrow on this iVoices.org podcast to talk about [...]

Tea Party activists: Who we are, who we aren’t

by Rossputin | 5:51 am, April 20, 2010

Still feeling tired blogging muscles from yesterday’s effort about Obama the Insulting, allow me to offer for today’s intellectual ammunition some reading about Tea Party members:

First, from the Wall Street Journal, an on-target piece explaining why the left so desperately needs to try to portray the Tea Party movement as racist:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704671904575193921155425154.html#printMode

Second, from Michael Barone, a discussion of what common threat of motivation runs through Tea Party members: an opposition to a culture of dependence:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36586

And finally, these words from the ever-wise Don Boudreaux:

19 April 2010

Editor, Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Editor:

Dana Milbank ridicules Tea Partiers as malcontents “expressing violent thoughts, peacefully” (“Gun-toting protesters voice violent thoughts peacefully,” April 20).

I leave to each reader, and to history, the task of assessing Tea Partiers’ propensity for violence. One useful comparison would be with, say, the anti-globalization protestors of a few years back (who likely fancied themselves as expressing peaceful thoughts, violently).

But a more relevant comparison is with the institution that the Tea Partiers protest: Uncle Sam. THAT outfit – government – is the very embodiment of gun-toting force. If I don’t buy health insurance, government will threaten violence against me in order to compel me to do so. If I refuse to answer intimate questions from the Census Bureau about my personal life, such as about the number of nights that I sleep away from home, I will be fined – and imprisoned if I refuse to pay the fine – and violently apprehended if I struggle to avoid imprisonment.

Government cloaks itself in magnificent titles, marble buildings, and majestic ceremonies. Behind this glorious façade, though, is a fusillade of brute, deadly force, ready to be violently unleashed against anyone who disobeys the commands of ruling politicians.

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

Fresh Political Breath!

by Eileen McGuire-Mahony | 3:18 am, April 20, 2010

Political Breath is already up and working this fine morning, with your tip of the day and superb new article on the importance of discretion. See that tab that says ‘Political Breath’?  Right under the R-E-S part of Press?  Yes,yes, that’s it…mouse over…easy…now, click!  Click, you fool!

Doctors sue to overturn ObamaCare

by Brian Schwartz | 1:32 am, April 20, 2010

From the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc:

On March 26th, 2010 AAPS filed suit to invalidate the new massive health care bill, which passed the House by only 4 votes on a party-line vote (with 34 Democrats voting against it). Forcing patients to buy insurance that may not even cover the [...]

Ken Buck gets Senator DeMint’s Endorsement

by Al Maurer | 10:19 pm, April 19, 2010

I think it has been a long time coming, but finally on April 14 Sen DeMint made the announcement on his Senate Conservatives site. He wrote: I’m proud to announce my support for Ken Buck for U.S. Senate. He’s an authentic conservative who has strong support from grass roots conservatives in Colorado,” said Senator Jim [...]

Happy Hour Meetup May 3rd — PCU

by redrocks | 4:01 pm, April 19, 2010

Join the discussion about “PC” campuses/culture!

Liberty on the Rocks, The Independence Institute, and The American Enterprise Institute invite you to Liberty on the Rocks (Red Rocks) chapter:

Topic: “The Politically Correct University”

Guest: Robert Anthony [...]

Boulder’s Prescriptive Pathway To Higher Rent Costs

by Chuck Moe | 2:11 pm, April 19, 2010

As I wrote in February, keeping Boulder green isn’t easy and the Boulder City Council Eco-Police still need to keep “Two Men and a Truck” employed. Since then Boulder has been busy paving their Smart-Reg Prescriptive Pathway to sustainable economic and political control.

iVoices: THE Week for Sen. Michael Johnston’s Tenure Reform SB 191

by Eddie | 10:51 am, April 19, 2010

As far as education reform issues go, this year’s Colorado legislative session has been kind of humdrum. Until now. Yes, this week is THE week. Senate Bill 191 — the proposal I’ve told you about that will overhaul our state’s evaluation and tenure system for the better — will be heard in the Senate Education [...]

Coal Remains King for Reliable, Economical Energy

by Ari Armstrong | 10:14 am, April 19, 2010

The following article originally was published in the April 16, 2010, Grand Junction Free Press.Coal remains king for reliable, economical energyby Linn and Ari ArmstrongApparently the legislature’s idea of a “pro-business” bill is paying off special …

Lexington and Concord, 235 Years Later

by Ben DeGrow | 8:07 am, April 19, 2010

While a certain Democratic ex-President has been trying to exploit the memory of today’s terrible 15th anniversary to take a political cheap shot at millions of Americans, I prefer to commemorate a different anniversary.
Two hundred thirty-five years ago today, American patriots at Lexington and Concord ignited the cause of liberty on American shores. What was [...]

Talk show hosts sponsor Bye Bye Betsy contest

by Amy Oliver | 6:35 am, April 19, 2010

Several talk show hosts from my radio station News Talk 1310 KFKA in Greeley are sponsoring a fun contest to say goodbye to 4th Congressional District Representative Betsy Markey.  I’m not going to rehash all the reasons why I think Markey has failed her constituents.  Read previous posts about her for that.
This is your opportunity to have [...]

Ed Perlmutter 42, Ryan Frazier 39: Race for Colorado’s 7th CD is On

by Ben DeGrow | 6:22 am, April 19, 2010

A week ago I mentioned a new poll from Colorado’s 7th Congressional District showing Republican challenger Ryan Frazier in a statistical dead heat with liberal Democrat Ed Perlmutter. Compliments of the Frazier campaign, below are the details of the April 8 survey from Magellan Data Mapping and Strategies:

Ryan Frazier (R): 39%
Ed Perlmutter (D): 42%

Survey Demographics
Republican: [...]

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold speaks at the Denver Tax Day Tea Party rally

by CTBC Director | 5:56 am, April 19, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado made appearances as a featured speaker at several of the Tax Day Tea Party rallies around the state on Thursday, April 15th (Tax Day!) as grassroots groups and citizens of all stripes came together to reassert their voice in Colorado Politics…
Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold spoke at two events, in [...]

Obama, Clinton insult and defame American citizens

by Rossputin | 4:26 am, April 19, 2010

I took a few days to think about this note before posting it, so plenty of people have had the chance to comment during the four days since Barack Obama gave the clearest indication yet of his all-consuming arrogance.

Before I get to Obama, a few words about Bill “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” Clinton:  In a speech on Friday at a leftist think-tank, Clinton compared the Tea Party movement to Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, the 15-year anniversary of which is today (April 19th).

Clinton talked described Tea Party activity as “disorientation” and in usual Clinton finger-wagging style said that pro-liberty activists should “be careful with what you say and do not advocate violence.” Of course, Clinton’s unsubtle implication with those words and bringing up the memory of Oklahoma City are an attempt to tar Tea Parties as havens for would-be violent fanatics despite the utter lack of evidence to support such an insinuation.

It’s part of the Dems’ scheme to paint anyone who opposes the tyrannical Progressive agenda as racist, stupid, and dangerous.  If anything, it is nothing more than projection.  After all, who is more racist than people who claim that Tea Party members must be racist and violent because they’re mostly white people?  Who is more dangerous than politicians who want to demonize and silence millions of citizens?  Who is more stupid than a politician who doesn’t realize that today’s elections are determined by independent voters and that independent voters aren’t fooled by bogus claims that people fighting for low taxes, limited govermment, and respect for our Constitution are parallels to McVeigh or Klansmen?

And now, to our own Dear Leader, Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Obama:

While on a trip to Florida where he talked about privatizing part of NASA (an arm of government which is at the bottom of any sensible person’s list of what we first need to privatize), Barack Obama said that he was “amused” by the Tax Day Tea Parties and that those of us who believe government is over-taxing and over-spending “should be saying thank you” to him.

On Friday, Rush Limbaugh did an excellent few minutes of “thanking” Obama for the many assaults The One has launched against the liberty and economic well-being of the nation. But that isn’t enough, in my view.

Barack Obama is turning into a Keith Olbermann-like clown, so full of himself and so surrounded by sycophantic advisers and kool-aid drinkers that he is utterly unaware of how deep and wide are the increasingly negative feelings about him across the nation.

But at least Olbermann is just a media figure.

Barack Obama is arguably the most powerful man in the world (despite his efforts to weaken the country he leads).  For the president of a free republic to ridicule millions of American citizens, the people whose bank accounts and childrens’ futures he is mortgaging in his rush toward “transforming” America into just-an0ther-nation, is reprehensible.

Even if the Tea Party represented a tenth of the number of people it does, it would still be one of the largest grass-roots movements in American politics in recent memory.  Barack Obama’s casual dismissal of the wakening giant should and will only serve to anger us more.  Indeed, I can imagine (based on projecting my own reaction on to others) Obama’s comments causing the creation of personal anger against him as opposed to the entirely policy-oriented anger and dismay we’ve felt so far during his tyrannical reign.

Barack Obama has gone from being a socialist/fascist petty tyrant to insulting millions of us…to insulting you…to insulting me.  In terms of politics, Obama may think he’s riling up his far-left-wing loony base but there could hardly have been a more boneheaded move in terms of motivating conservatives and offending independent voters than calling serious-minded protest “amusing”.

I can practically see the smirk on Obama’s face as he made the comments and I can only hope that someone would have the courage to slap it off his face…and that voters will give him the electoral equivalent of that slap in November and again two years hence.

One last thought on this (for today): The narcissistic and condescending views of Presidents Obama and Clinton is not peculiar to them. Such views are an inherent part of being a true-believing Progressive.  Progressivism is based on a fundamental lack of faith in individual citizens or in organizations of citizens to make the best decisions for themselves or for the nation.  Progressivism’s key attribute is its insistence that the “smart people”, the technocrats, the people who really “care”, should be handling the levers of power over every important aspect of our lives, from education to resource allocation.

It is of no matter to a Progressive that every such political construct has failed in the past, with the size of the failure proportionate to the size of the implementation of Progressive (i.e. socialist) ideas.  For a Progressive, past failures only mean that not-quite-smart-enough people were put in charge, or that the government domination of the private sector wasn’t complete enough for their plans to work.

It is no wonder that Progressivism thrives, like scum on a stagnant pond, in the halls of academia, where professors are masters of dozens or hundreds or thousands of students and where they can spend their meetings and conferences telling each other how smart they are. After all, it is in the narrow interest of each of them to do so: To the extent that an academic supports the ego and the career of another academic, he increases the chance of someone returning the favor.  It’s a mostly closed system and, like that stagnant pond, takes a fairly large event to substantially change, to allow even a modicum of life-giving respect for individual liberty.

Barack Obama comes from such halls, having never had an private sector job (at least not as an adult), never produced anything, never met a payroll, and being surrounded by people like Cass Sunstein at the University of Chicago – the same Sunstein who has argued that government should encourage pro-government pawns to infiltrate chat rooms and anti-big-government meetings, even if it means government paying such infitrators to sneak pro-Progressive propaganda into such arenas.

So, let’s be clear about the fundamental assumption of Progressives like Barack Obama and Bill (and Hillary) Clinton: you are a stupid sheep designed to be dominated and led. Your job is to do what you’re told, to speak when spoken to, to eat your vegetables like a well-behaved child. And when you find the meal being shoved down your throat to be too bitter, your complaints are “amusing”.

Sorry, Mr. Obama, but now you’ve really gone too far.  Although I’m just one person, I hope and believe I represent many when I tell you that it’s one thing to awaken the sleeping giant and another thing entirely to beat and taunt him.  I was already motivated by your policies to oppose your presidency.  But now you’ve made it personal. Now I’m also motivated by a deep dislike of you and I will work tirelessly to defeat your agenda and defeat you and your allies in every election where I might have an influence.  And when you are defeated, I will take the same joy in that as any soldier takes when his army wins a war against an invading enemy, the same pride that soldier would have knowing that he was part of defending his nation against a force which hated it, didn’t understand it, and wanted to “transform” it from a free society into a tyranny.

You, Mr. Obama, are doing everything you can to transform yourself from a modestly objectionable petty leftist dictator into an outright enemy of the citizenry.  It is a transformation which is dangerous, destructive, and to use one of your favorite terms, “historic”.  And it is under your control.  At this point, it’s becoming clear that you’re willing to be the enemy of millions if it means you get your Progressive agenda jammed down our throats at home and American influence curtailed abroad. And while I understand that your approach is the obvious conclusion of Progressivism, it is nevertheless saddening to watch our nation recognizing how completely you fooled most of them (but not me) with your campaign facade of moderation.  I might suggest that you have a hard choice to make, but obviously you’ve already made it.  So be it.

[One short but important warning, lest some leftist agitator wants to take my words out of context:  I am not calling for political violence of any sort (though I wouldn’t object to someone slapping Barack Obama for the sheer insolence of his professed “amusement.")  This nation is far from the place that Thomas Jefferson probably meant when he suggested that “the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  Our anger and frustration, and more importantly our desire to see our republic continue as a place where liberty thrives, must be channeled into winning at the ballot box.  Indeed, part of the strength of the Tea Party movement has been the wise self-restraint of its members, the remarkable lack of violence throughout hundreds of anti-big-government protests involving hundreds of thousands of people.  We must, as a movement, remain vigilant against the ability of the left and supporters of big government to characterize us as violent or racist; we must  maintain our true character as an awakening of the American people against tyranny, nothing more and nothing less.  So, please, if you’re as angry as I am – and if you take Obama’s words as the personal insult that I do – react by redoubling your efforts to beat liberals and might-as-well-be-liberals this November…and in every election in the future.]

The Colorado Car Tax – er, “vehicle registration fee” increase – brought to you courtesy of the Colorado Supreme Court

by CTBC Director | 3:03 am, April 19, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado has alerted Colorado citizens over the last several months to the Colorado General Assembly’s underhanded tactic (Colorado Politics at its worst) of circumventing the TABOR requirement to receive voter approval before imposing or increasing taxes by playing the word game of calling the charges “fees” instead – thanks to a ruling by the Colorado Supreme [...]

Fresh Political Breath!

by Eileen McGuire-Mahony | 1:40 am, April 19, 2010

Check out PPC’s newest project, Political Breath, for loads of new content today. It’ll require some scrolling for now as we iron out the bugs in setting things up, but we think you’ll like what we’ve done with the place.

The “choice” to prohibit other people’s choices

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, April 19, 2010

March a number of people and organizations* filed a Motion for Rehearing [pdf] in regards to the Colorado Right Health Care Choice Initiative.  The Motion contains a number of arguments that claiming that the Title Board lacks jurisdiction over the measure’s contents, which I suppose would mean the its contents are not legally appropriate for [...]

Interview, Part II: Ken Buck has run his DA office like a fiscal conservative

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 10:51 pm, April 18, 2010

Is Ken Buck really a fiscal conservative? If he’s elected to the U.S. Senate, will the Weld County District Attorney (DA) put his votes where his mouth is?
The answer seems obvious. If elected, Ken Buck would be one of the most fiscally conservative members of the U.S. Senate. After reviewing some 40 pages of

AIPAC: Israel and Colorado’s Congressional Delegation

by elpresidente | 9:21 pm, April 18, 2010

Ed. note–guestblog from fellow LPR classmate Len S. Zheleznyak Today I had the opportunity to attend the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC ) brunch at the Denver Grand Hyatt. Since the 1950s AIPAC has been working to insure that Israel remains secure by working to maintain strong support from the US, through education [...]

A common disconnect among statists

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 12:50 pm, April 18, 2010

Denver Post columnist Susan Greene is one of my favorite progressives. Her columns are uniformly thoughtful, even when I disagree with one of her statist positions.

Andrew Watts: The insanity of greenery

by Rossputin | 5:54 am, April 18, 2010

From one of the best energy/climate blogs on the web, this sort of stuff would make you laugh if it weren’t costing you so much money…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/13/the-insanity-of-greenery/

Colorado’s Steve Schreiner running for National Rifle Assn. board

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 4:23 pm, April 17, 2010

Steve Schreiner, a volunteer lobbyist for the National Rifle Assn., and a long-time fighter for the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, is running for the board of the NRA. And he’s picked up an important endorsement. A Vietnam War veteran and a winner of the Silver and Bronz stars, Schreiner has a strong following among Colorado NRA members. Members must cast their votes by April 25.

The script for my “robo-call” to AFP members – See you all Monday.

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 4:10 pm, April 17, 2010

Thousands stood up at Tea Parties across Colorado on Thursday to send a message to our elected officials that November is Coming. Unfortunately, President Obama is not going to wait to push his big government agenda,

Hi, this is David Williams, Denver Director of Americans for Prosperity. Join me on Monday in Denver on the West Steps of the Capitol at 5:00pm to learn about the intrusive global warming regulations that the administration is trying to force on the American people through the EPA…without a vote of Congress.

Bring out your family and friends for great speakers and dinner and send Senator Bennet a message: Stop the EPA Power grab or we will hold you responsible for the lost Colorado jobs and higher prices!

Press 1 now to let us know you’re attending this free event tomorrow night in Denver. Or Go to regulation reality dot com to register. That’s regulation reality dot com.

Paid for By Americans for Prosperity

Sanctions for Iceland?

by John West | 10:08 am, April 17, 2010

In this modern world of nonsensical political maneuvering the UN is more than willing to impose its will on corporations for carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) and sulfur dioxide (an acid rain gas) emissions. So my question today is, how long before the global busy-bodies decide to impose sanctions or fines against Iceland for their [...]

« 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