Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The "religious oppression" quote is priceless!
Why isn't Mark Udall condemning these idiots????
Read on for for more of PPH's dissection of the land of Boulder and the future leaders it is breeding.
Liberal morons in the Peoples Republic of Boulder are protesting the pledge of allegiance. Not too surprising, right? But listen to their rationale in the Boulder Daily Camera.
Members of the activist Student Worker club are inviting their peers to leave class every Thursday at 8:30 a.m. — when the pledge is recited over the intercom — and meet in the courtyard to say a revised version of the pledge that doesn't reference God.
Their club must be comprised of suburban white kids who have only visited Denver a handful of times and don’t understand what real problems are.
Club President Emma Martens, a Boulder High senior who's leading the protest, wrote this new version: "I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity, in which our nation stands, one nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."
Their club president is most likely a trust-fund baby who has ample time to spend creating problems that don’t exist. This idiot goes on to show how incredibly stupid she is with this statement.
"Boulder High has a highly diverse population, not all of whom believe in God, or one God," Martens said. "We didn't think it was fair for the whole school to have to listen to it. "It's almost religious oppression," she said.
Religious oppression? Are you exaggerating or are you so incredibly stupid that you don’t understand what that term means? We’re willing to bet on the latter. If you want to see religious oppression look no further than Sudan, China and other places that participate in true religious oppression.
Is there nothing else news worthy going on in Boulder that the Camera could cover? We all know you guys can’t solve murders there, but we’re sure there is something else you can focus on.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Press release from Paccione campaign below
There are no words adequate enough to describe the privilege I?ve had representing the people of Fort Collins as their State Representative and as the Democratic candidate for the people of the 4th Congressional District. In 2000, when there was no democratic candidate on the ballot for the 4th CD, I was motivated to enter politics to fill the void in leadership. At that time I offered my service as the voice of the people in representative government. I am forever changed, forever grateful, and forever indebted to the people for the opportunity they gave me to serve them.
I have a passion to serve people by doing whatever I can to unleash their greatness. This is what has always compelled me. I used my skills as an athlete to serve our country in international competition, I used my academic talent to serve our youth as an educator, and I used my political position to serve the people I represented by giving them hope, making the system work for them, and empowering them to participate in politics as well.
Since September of 2005 I have been on a mission to win the 4th Congressional district because I believe and many others do as well, that I would be a better, more effective representative for the people of this district. As an elected official I have always focused on what?s right, not on who?s right. That has allowed me to reach across political divides and partisan politics to get things done for the people of our great state. I am proud of the work I was able to do?as a lead sponsor of legislation and as a co-sponsor. I have always been accessible to my constituents, I have always been responsive to their concerns, and I have always worked with members of both political parties.
Last night I had the privilege of speaking to hundreds of high school students and their parents. I told them what I have been telling young people for nearly three decades? to have the courage to say "yes" to opportunity. Today I am here to do the very thing I encourage others to do?to say yes to an amazing opportunity that has presented itself to me. Since January, I have been working with Pathways to Leadership Inc., a company that gives businesses a competitive advantage over others by helping them unleash the greatness in their employees, teams, and organization. This is a company that changes the results people and organizations deliver - because it changes the lives of the people in the organization.
I thought that I might be able to work with Pathways to Leadership and campaign for Congress at the same time. However, the opportunities with Pathways have grown and I must say "yes" to those opportunities. In addition to locations in the US, my work with Pathways will be taking me to Australia, Switzerland, Mexico, and Italy in the very near future. In those travels, I will be working with businessmen and women who are motivated to improve their leadership skills and the wellness culture in their workplace.
This is a tremendous opportunity for me and I have wrestled with my decision for a number of weeks now. The campaign is very strong, the support is broad-based, and I still believe I am the best candidate to win the seat. However, I am motivated by a passion to serve and my opportunity with Pathways gives me the ability to serve immediately. I could spend the next 14 months campaigning for the opportunity to make a difference or I could spend the next 14 months actually making a difference in the lives of others.
So, today I am announcing that I am ending my campaign for congress in the 4th district.
From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank my staff, my volunteers, and all those who invested time, energy, and hope in our campaign. I am thrilled that I have been a vehicle for their involvement in the political process. Those that have been empowered by my campaign will continue to use their voice to impact the politics of their communities? I am certain of it. And although I won?t be their candidate I will continue to be their friend and will fight side by side with them to change our country and the world.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
From Backbone America
Lamborn among the Lilliputians
by Dave Crater
Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO5) couldn’t have known when he first waded into Colorado politics over a decade ago that he would wash ashore on Lilliput. Such seems to be the case, however. As you remember, Jonathan Swift created two fictional islands in his 1726 classic, Gulliver’s Travels, Lilliput and Blefuscu. No disproof having been established, one assumes that both islands are, still today, located in the South Indian Ocean, separated by a channel 800 yards in width,
and inhabited by people “not six inches high.”
More to the point for the purpose of current politics: When a shipwrecked and still asleep Lemuel Gulliver washed up on the shores of Lilliput and was captured by little people who tied him down before he awoke, he discovered that the two islands were permanently at war over the correct way to eat a boiled egg. Still today, the inhabitants of Blefuscu are firmly convinced the correct way to eat a boiled egg is to start at the rounded end. The Lilliputians are equally convicted that, still today, no civilized person eats a boiled egg any way except sharp end first.
Though Gulliver is a giant compared to the Lilliputians, he does not return their hostility in kind, but rather helps to aid them in various ways before, for no other reason than his refusal to take part in their selfish perfidies, he again earns their fickle and shallow scorn.
Naïve people here in Colorado sometimes refer to Lilliput as the El Paso County Republican Party, but we really should get into the habit of calling places and people by their proper names. The little people in Lilliput are particularly active these days, doing their best to tie up Congressman Gulliver — er, Lamborn — before he permanently awakes and takes to himself for many years to come the title of Congressman, a title which the Lilliputians believe rightfully belongs only to a Lilliputian.
The chief Lilliputians in Lilliput these days are one Mr. Jeff Crank and one retired General Bentley Rayburn. To be sure, both are accomplished men by Lilliputian standards; indeed, they appear to know it. Gulliver is equally accomplished and, refreshingly, doesn’t appear to know it. More to the point, by the standards that Gulliver considers genuinely meaningful and which are in truth the only things that can turn a Lilliputian into a Giant — old-fashioned notions that include courageous loyalty to true principles and good men above one’s personal ambitions, and doing the right thing and telling the truth even when it’s not popular, and doing it for a long time — it appears Gulliver is, still today, as lonely as he was in 1726.
The Leading Lilliputians are currently squabbling over who is justified in taking on Gulliver in a primary next year. One says it is properly he because — well, that’s never been entirely clear. Part of it must be a result of his having come so close to beating Gulliver two years ago. As for the rest of it — well, perhaps he eats the round end of the egg first.
The other Leading Lilliputian and his Supporting Lilliputians say he’s a general, and thus a true leader. The question as to why a true leader would challenge an incumbent Giant like Gulliver — remember, a Giant is not necessarily someone who is popular, but someone who does what is right and tells the truth, and has for a long time — does not appear to have yet been posed in Lilliput.
To cap things off, if a newspaper article on Sept 19 was any indication, it appears the Leading Lilliputians are so hostile to Gulliver that they may have overcome their own mutual antipathies long enough to make something of a Gentle-Lilliputian’s agreement: if either is behind in the polls close to election day, that one will drop out of the race. “There is no formal agreement,” mind you – personal interests are not to be sacrificed until it’s clear there is really nothing to be sacrificed and fulfillment of spite toward Gulliver becomes the only remaining objective. “It’s not going to be my ego that causes [Gulliver] to get re-elected,” one Lilliputian said.
The next day, the other Lilliputian’s supporters were again assaulting both his rival and Gulliver for only the vaguest of reasons: “[Gulliver] was not a leader in the (state) legislature, and he won’t be in Washington,” one said. “And [the opposing Lilliputian] has nothing to set him aside, nothing of stature.” Translation: we don’t like Gulliver and the other Lilliputian eats his boiled eggs pointed end
So what does our modern-day congressional Gulliver do amidst these Lilliputians? What Gulliver has always done. “[Gulliver’s] campaign said they had no comment,” the latter story reports. He faithfully continues his accustomed course in the world and in the halls of national government, praying for the welfare of the Lilliputians even in their spite toward him. It’s safe to assume Gulliver realizes life and politics in Lilliput are, still today, fickle, and not likely to change any time soon.
As has been pointed out, Congressman Lamborn definitely is the giant in this story defending the Lillputians to his own peril. I caution those, that continually throw bombs thinking they will not be rebuked, that the giant is presumably getting tired of it and that the same campaign team that smacked you around in 2006 will grow tired of it as well and will have to deal with the Lilliputians.
I also know that for Republicans to lose as little seats next year as possible, that a new tune must be sung in regards to the war in Iraq.
The good news is that the Iraq war is no longer a Republican problem. Democrat incumbents will take as much, if not more, heat on the Iraq war as incumbent Republicans. The key difference between the two parties is that the Democrats said they would get the troops home immediately, a promise they have failed to keep to the American people.
By failing to get the U.S. out of the war Democrat incumbents are at risk from those in their own party unhappy with their commitment to the withdrawal efforts.
A good example is Cindy Sheehan taking on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. I have and never will be a Pelosi apologist, but I would take her in a heartbeat over a crackpot like Sheehan.
Read The Hill article below on the celebrities endorsing Sheehan and the affect it will play in the 08 elections.
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan is making celebrity endorsements a key facet of her long-shot bid to defeat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) next year.
In a recent interview with The Hill, Sheehan said she has been endorsed by actress Roseanne Barr, country crooner Willie Nelson and Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello.
Sheehan added that White House hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) are also backing her.
“Celebrities bring a certain kind of — good or bad, it seems like our lives are centered around TV and movies — I think it does bring credibility,” Sheehan said.
Nelson is a friend of Sheehan’s and has offered to help her raise money for her campaign. “[Nelson and his wife] just have the exact correct politics and the exact compassion for the earth and humanity that I think attracts us as friends,” she said.
“I support Cindy Sheehan in everything she does,” Nelson wrote in an e-mail, “whether it’s running for Congress, or the president of the U.S. She’s a great American, not afraid to stand up for what she believes in.”
Sheehan, who is running as an independent, unaffiliated candidate, is counting on comedians such as Barr to lend some star power to the campaign. Several San Francisco-based comediennes are planning a campaign fundraiser for Sheehan, she said.
Spokesmen for Barr and Morello did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Kucinich praised Sheehan, but declined to confirm that he is formally backing her.
“I like Cindy,” Kucinich said. “She has been a very important spokesperson in challenging the war. She and I marched together against the war.”
He said he doesn’t comment on races waged against incumbents as a “matter of policy.”
Sheehan is backing Kucinich for the presidency.
Hip Hop Caucus President Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr. said he will lend his support. “Cindy Sheehan is the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement and the race in San Francisco is fundamentally about organized people versus organized money,” he said.
Pelosi won her 2006 congressional campaign handily, taking 80 percent of the vote. She’s also had her share of celebrity support. Celebrities ranging from movie producer Francis Ford Coppola to comedian Robin Williams have given money to her campaigns.
Bruce Cain, a political science professor at the University of California Berkeley and the director of the D.C.-based Institute of Governmental Studies, said Sheehan’s chances of beating Pelosi are “slim to none.”
Sheehan is unlikely to get 10 to 15 percent of the vote because there aren’t enough “progressive, green, anarchist types” in the district to elect her, Cain said. Californians do not blame Pelosi for not getting troops out of Iraq, he added.
“The motivation to elect a Democrat is going to be stronger than the motivation to make a point,” Cain said.
Pelosi has already accumulated close to $1.3 million in her campaign coffers. A Pelosi spokesman refused to comment on Sheehan’s campaign.
In a recent e-mail on Iraq that was sent by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to potential donors, Pelosi pointed out that she has been a longtime activist: “Long before I was Speaker of the House, I was a political activist like you …”
Sheehan said hers will be a grassroots campaign. She doesn’t expect to come close to out-raising Pelosi.
“I’m not going to be competing with her on money or on the establishment,” she said, noting she won’t accept any corporate donations.
McKinney, an outspoken opponent of the war, expressed her support for Sheehan at a rally in August near one of the president’s vacation homes in Maine.
“Our children deserve a better country and the world deserves a better partner. That’s why I’m happy to see Cindy Sheehan run for Congress. I want Cindy to win,” McKinney said.
Sheehan said she expects more celebrity endorsements to roll in as her campaign kicks into high gear, but she does not anticipate many of Pelosi’s colleagues will back her.
“If they support me it’s going to be difficult for them to get chairmanships or to get on a committee,” she said. “I totally understand if nobody comes out and supports me.”
She wasn’t shy about criticizing Democrats for funding the war.
“If I tell my children, ‘Don’t do drugs’ … and then one of my children asks, ‘Mom, can I have money for drugs?’ and I give them money for drugs, that’s showing them my approval,” she said. “[Congress is] giving [its] approval to President Bush to wage this occupation of Iraq.”
Part of Sheehan’s campaign will aim to enfranchise minorities and young people “who have felt disenfranchised by the power elite.”
She’s also getting educated on local issues important to California’s 8th district and house-hunting in the area. Sheehan lives in northern California, but plans to move into the district soon. She’s organizing her campaign team and hopes to begin campaign fundraisers and events in October.
Sheehan’s battle against the war began after her son Casey, a 24-year-old Army specialist, was killed in Baghdad. She began demonstrating outside of President Bush’s Texas ranch and founded Gold Star Families for Peace in August of 2005. In May, Sheehan announced that she was retiring from anti-war activism, only to return with a challenge to Pelosi: If Pelosi didn’t move to impeach Bush and Vice President Cheney, Sheehan would mount a congressional campaign against her. Sheehan subsequently announced her candidacy in August.
Sheehan called the first female Speaker of the House a “consummate politician” and emphasized that she and Pelosi agree on most issues, with the notable exceptions of Iraq and impeachment.
“In her heart she probably does care about the people of Iraq — but when they sit down to talk about Iraq they talk politics, not about the human cost of war,” she said, referring to Democrats.
Pelosi is vulnerable in liberal San Francisco, a district where the majority of people don’t support the Iraq war, Sheehan said. “People over there are dismayed,” she said. “Nancy is not holding Bush and Cheney accountable. She’s not ending the war in Iraq.”
Many Democrats, however, have defended Pelosi’s action. They say that Pelosi has worked feverishly to end the war, but does not have the votes to override the president’s veto pen.
Sheehan promised that she would not be known as a one-issue candidate, a label that hurt Ned Lamont in his general election bid to defeat Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).
Sheehan, who doesn’t have health insurance, said that making healthcare available to all Americans would be a priority.
“[The Iraq war] is an overriding issue. We can talk about universal healthcare, we can talk about the costs of a college education, we can talk about a lot of issues that affect every American. When we are spending money on Iraq, we cannot rebuild our infrastructure — we cannot do that in America when we are devoted to the war machine.”
She added, “I really think we’ve done the marches, we’ve done the disobedience and the next natural step is to challenge the establishment. This really isn’t me against Nancy Pelosi. This is me against the war machine.”
Monday, September 24, 2007
In fact you should send this excerpt to your favorite Republican state Representative and Senator as a reminder that "good government" is small government.
In his 1996 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton felt the need to let Americans know the era of big government had ended. This curious assertion was meant to allay the growing concerns of Americans, who had begun to see government as stepping over the bounds of its charge.
Clinton’s words rang hollow. In many respects, the big government was simply refocusing, consolidating, and beginning to cast its eye toward regulating private matters that had previously been out of bounds. “Big” intrusive government was now also in the hand of local city councils, which could often put the big boys to shame.
Though Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich started getting crabby about the nanny state in the mid-1990s, by the time George W. Bush, a Republican—purportedly the party of less intrusive government—was elected to his second term in 2004, the new and improved nanny state was only expanding its authority. “We have the responsibility that, when somebody hurts, government has got to move,” explained President Bush on Labor Day 2003. Twenty years ago, this kind of brazen promotion of the state would have been unheard of coming from the lips of any respectable Republican—and barely any Democrats would have dared to give voice to it.
In 1997, vice president and future presidential candidate Al Gore explained that government was “like grandparents in the sense that grandparents perform a nurturing role.” The word “nurturing” was perhaps too delicate for conservative Andrew Card, George Bush’s chief of staff during the 2004 presidential election, who framed the idea in a more red-state, family-friendly lingo, explaining that the president “sees America as we think about a ten-year-old child.” This was an evolution of sorts from Bush’s fairly restrained proclamation in the 2000 race that “government must be carefully limited, but strong and active.”
Today, politicians of both parties brazenly endorse nanny policies in response to the slightest anxiety or unsettling development. Many Americans have felt the government’s evolution from strong and active to smothering grandparent.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The CSU College Republicans Call for Resignation of University Newspaper Editor
Fort Collins - The Colorado State University College Republicans are calling for The Collegian editor in chief, David McSwane, to resign. On Friday, September 21, 2007, The Rocky Mountain Collegian, Volume 116, No. 36, published an editorial using explicit language directed toward President Bush. The editorial has created an uproar among students and community members.
The College Republicans acknowledge the Collegian’s right to free speech, and are utilizing their right to criticize. This is not a free speech issue; it is an issue of journalist integrity. It is believed that this was a politically charged statement. Chelsey Penoyer, Chair of the CSU CRs, noted, “It is one thing to challenge us, the College Republicans as your peers, but it is another to attack the Executive Office of the United States. This is a display of blatant disrespect for the Office of the President of the United States.”
Nor is this an issue of constitutionality. The CSU CRs are not trying to censor them or take away their right. However, this is a public paper with a large readership. McSwane had no consideration for the community of Fort Collins. It is a family-oriented city, and must be noted that the paper goes out to businesses and restaurants around the city where everyone has the availability to read it. The Fort Collins community has continually embraced and supported CSU.
There are numerous media outlets in the community; however on the CSU campus there is only one that blatantly leans to the left. This is exactly why the CSU CRs have established a second voice on campus that portrays the views of conservative students. They are looking for advertisers and writers. Anyone who is interested can email them at firstname.lastname@example.org.
This not only discredits CSU and college students in general. It also has caused a loss of all credibility for The Collegian. Monday, September 24th, the CRs were scheduled for a CSU College Republican recruitment event. Therefore, they will continue by holding this event on the Student Center plaza. The CSU CRs will now be having an informal, official petition for people to sign asking for McSwane’s resignation.
(Click here for the actual headline. Verbiage is not sensored)
While we at CCP respect free speech, even blatant disrespect for our President such as this, what we do not respect is college newspapers with the vocabulary of the local dive bar.
"Taser this...F**K Bush"
Is this really the best that liberal colleges can give us anymore?
They could have done a witty editorial about why they don't like Bush, Republicans, or the war. They could have stolen some material from The Colbert Report who probably stole it from Air America. The could have actually taken the initiative to write a sensible editorial that might have endeared part of the student body to their views.
They could have.
Instead we are left with nebulous drivel cobbled together that offended many, irritated a few, and left the rest of us laughing at the current state of a young liberals vocabulary. Not that we ever would accuse The Collegian for its probity, I guess we just expected better.
On the bright side, they have done a heck of a job of pissing off moderate students who might have volunteered for Dem campaigns in 08. Although it is doubtful those students will volunteer for any Republican campaign, there is something to be said for people not hating a cause as much. They lose alacrity as well as their power to draw others in.
On the brighter side, as this is all good news today, they have also sparked the CSU CR's to do something on campus. Not that the usual diet of going to weekly meetings and complaining about Hillary care sprinkled with occasional boozefests is a bad thing for CR chapters, it is just nice to see any CR chapter in Colroado making some noise and poking the opposition in the eye every once in awhile. This CSU CR chapter is taking the initiative to start is own publication to refute the liberal bias of the current paper.
While we here at CCP sincerely hope for the best for the CR newspaper we do make the simple request that its first editorial be longer then five words.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
I've gotten a bunch of e-mail this morning from the, er, small subset of political junkies who are also Star Wars geeks, and a couple of things are clear:
George Bush is Emperor Palpatine.
Before he became evil, Dick Cheney was a great and good Jedi. (Possibly during the Gerald Ford administration. Was this reported at the time?) And in his final act, he redeems himself by taking down the Emperor. (Still time?)
A private e-mail Dobson said this about Thompson:
"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?"
"He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
You may recall several months ago that Dobson also said he didn't think Thompson was a Christian.
(H/T: Jonathan Martin's Blog on Politico.com )
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
RINO State Rep. Al White (Winter Park) is staffing up.
According to his campaign press release, Matt Johnston of Beauprez' failed campaign has signed up for White.
Al White is the single most liberal Republican currently in the Colorado General Assembly.
Friday, September 14, 2007
According to Breitbart, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING cause he is just going to steal it for himself anyways.
Click hear to read more.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Though some are saying that he is taking on Bob Schaffer in the primary, people forget that he first has to make the ballot to be in the primary.
Just as Holtzman was not able to make the ballot, and just as some of your conspiracy theorists would say that Coors never really made the ballot, you can soon say the same thing about Mr. Wolf. The big difference is that Holtzman and Coors both had great campaign teams, both had money, and both had abit of name ID in Republican circles before they announced.
Wayne Wolf has none of those attributes.
On a political blog someone questioned if Mr. Wolf would be pushed out of the primary because he lacked the horns, implying he might be a RINO or Republican In Name Only for all you political sarcasm virgins. I will say that where Mr. Wolf is at on the conservative spectrum is of no concern to anyone, in fact Mr. Wolf even announcing he is running is really of no concern to anyone. No one will try and push him out, because no one will care.
If the Schaffer camp is concerned at all they could spend a couple thousand dollars on a delegate campaign to make sure he does not make the ballot, but even that IMHO is unneeded. When a political operative from the western slope called me last week to see if I knew who Wayne Wolf was(I had no clue), I knew the Schaffer camp would be fine.
I am sure that Mr. Wolf is a fine upstanding gentleman that has devoted many years of his life to the conservative movement, but that does not make him a contender in the Republican primary. Some feel that a few of the western slope's needs have been ignored by our current Senators, water being their main concern. But trying to take out Schaffer is not going to meet those needs anytime sooner. And to put things into perspective Schaffer is not the culprit to the western slope water woes and if anything he, as was done during his time in Congress, will be a champion for their cause.
Mr. Wolf I am sure you are a fine upstanding Republican. But for your self respect, bow out of this thing now. No one else is going to take the time to spare you.
Ritter has announced he intends to restore state funding to abortion groups like Planned Parenthood, in direct violation of the Colorado Constitution. Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe (R - Eaton) has joined with CFAC in this important fight. Last legislative session, Renfroe's SB07-143 was the first legislation ever introduce in the Colorado Assembly to ban abortions in Colorado.
"The reality is that Bill Ritter has never backed down from his promise to put money into Planned Parenthood," Mark Hotaling, the director of the Christian Family Alliance, told WND.
He explained that the budget the state currently is operating on was established mostly by the former governor before he left office.
Especially, he noted the state's "family planning" money was committed to other organizations that are operating under contracts already in existence. Ritter, when he made the statements about having taxpayers support Planned Parenthood's operations financially, meant it, and he still means it, Hotaling said.
"The governor had to appease the radical left of his party, and made certain promises. One of them he made repeatedly was to restore money to Planned Parenthood," Hotaling said."The reason he couldn't to do last legislative session was the timing of grants and the lack of funds in the state family planning fund," he said.
"But there's nothing to prohibit him from doing it in the next session, when more money can be put into the fund."He said the public needs to rise up and let the governor know of its opposition to taxpayer funding for the abortion industry.
Joining in the Colorado Family Alliance campaign is state Sen. Scott Renfroe, who told WND that he's "gravely concerned" about Ritter's announced plans.
He said he's asked the governor, "How are you going to do this, and uphold the constitution and the will of the people?" "I guess time will tell if he does do something," he said.
Renfroe told WND that a campaign letter has been sent to constituents seeking support. "I am saddened and appalled that Gov. Ritter assumes that part of our tax money already belongs to Colorado's largest abortionist," he wrote. "And with pro-abortion liberals in control of the State Legislature, our only hope is to turn to the good sense and actions of citizens … to help stop this injustice."
Visit www.TaxHikeMike.org for all the details.
From the site, here is Huckabee trying to defend why he was endorsed by a labor union:
Friday, September 07, 2007
A brief glance at the membership of this committee, proves once again, that Jeff Crank is a liberal, establishment hack and not a true conservative.
Finance committee members include notable RINO's*, Bruce Benson, Steve Schuck and Bill Miller.
[Eds. Note: For those of you that live under a rock, RINO means Republican In Name Only. It is the definition of liberals within the Republican Party.]
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Huckabee Clarifies a Bit on Smoking
Campaign Spot reader Alex writes in with an update from a Mike Huckabee conference call this morning.
Blogger: There’s some concern about your statements regarding tobacco regulation from the Lance Armstrong forum. As a Public Health Professional, I fully support any and all tobacco regulation, but others felt your comments meant you would be building big government and forcing behavior on individuals. Could you clarify your views on tobacco regulation?
Huckabee: Certainly, I don’t believe that we as a government have a right to tell people what to do or not do. The issue is one of workplace safety. The same reason that the government regulates the exposure of radon and other toxic gases in the workplace. In Arkansas I signed a bill that banned smoking in certain public areas and businesses, but not in bars/restaurants, because those were places consumers could more easily choose to go to or not to go. So, in the workplace, if we regulate smoking, it is an issue of worker safety. The responsibility initially lies with the states, of course. The only way this would be a federal responsibility is for it taking on that role as part of OSHA as it regulates other work place safety.
I'm both reassured and unnerved by this. Yes, at the presidential cancer forum, he did mention the restaurant and bar exception, but when asked by Chris Matthews if he would sign a bill banning smoking "in public places," he said, "I certainly would."
I sympathize, I don't like cigarette smoke in my workplace,
but I don't think it's an issue for Congress and the President to resolve.
Secondly, if he really thinks it is an issue of workplace safety, why would Huckabee subject waiters and waitresses, busboys, bartenders, and hosts to cigarette smoke?
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
While I don't necessarily agree with this take, its certainly worth reading.
Anti-abortion means you believe that abortion is killing a human person with a right to life, and therefore abortion should never or very rarely be legal.
Pro-life means you believe the same thing as someone who is anti-abortion. But it can mean so much more:
- Pro-life means you support the local crisis pregnancy centers and maternity homes that help women in desperate situations give life to their babies. It's more than a bumper sticker - it is time or money shared to give life to individual persons in need.
- Pro-life means you don't support the death penalty whenever there is any reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of pre-meditated murder. (Yes, I know a jury already decided the person was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But can you really expect a dozen people with no knowledge of legal standards or scientific/evidentially methods of proof to decide to acquit an accused when loved ones of the victim are clearly grieved before them, on the basis of "reasonable doubt"?)
- Pro-life means society gives people the means to be healthy and stay alive. Stay-at-home parents and people too sick to work need access to healing professionals just as much as employees, children and seniors. (The best way to do this is highly debatable by people of goodwill, but a pro-life person agrees this should be the goal.)
- Pro-life means you don't believe you are entitled to carry on activities that endanger the lives of others. You are not entitled to blow carcinogenic smoke into other people's lungs, you are not entitled to sell food or products that carry health risks without at least informing customers about the hazardous contents, and you are not entitled to drunk or reckless driving.
Some Republicans may bristle at some of these aspects of being pro-life. Particularly the last one -- according to some, this is supporting a "nanny state." No. A nanny state tells you that you can't eat Doritos or smoke in your own house. A pro-life state says that Frito Lay has to tell you what is in those Doritos and says you can't smoke in public places where other people have to breathe your exhaust fumes. A nanny state pays for your condoms and Cialis. A pro-life state tells insurance companies they can't refuse to give ongoing necessary treatment to people with chronic conditions like multiple sclerosis or Lyme Disease.
Huckabee is not just anti-abortion. He is pro-LIFE. That's why I think he deserves the votes of all pro-life citizens, regardless of party affiliation. Let libertarians sulk about smoking bans - if you are a pro-family traditionalist, a social-justice Christian, or anyone else who believes that the number one duty of government is protecting our right to life, Huckabee is your man.
I can't say that I support "social-justice," it sounds a lot like socialism with a populist/religious veneer.