Al White staffs up

UPDATE:
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.

NRA Board member calls for assault weapons ban

NRA Board member Joaquin Jackson calls for a ban on so called "assault weapons.":

For the man who has everything

What do you get a man who has won a Heisman trophy, appeared in the cinematic masterpiece The Naked Gun and killed two people in cold blood?

According to Breitbart, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING cause he is just going to steal it for himself anyways.
Click hear to read more.

The Reality Of Wayne Wolf Taking On Bob Schaffer

The big buzz in Colorado politics this week is that a gentleman named Wayne Wolf has announced his candidacy for the Senate seat being vacated by Wayne Allard.

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.

He won't.

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.

CFAC attack on Ritter get's national attention

Christian Family Alliance of Colorado has gotten national attention for their petition drive to force Governor Bill Ritter to respect Article V Section 50 of the Colorado Constitution which prohibits "direct" and "indirect" use of state funds to provide abortions.

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.

From WorldNetDaily:

"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.

More:

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."

More on Huckabee

Not to appear to be flogging a dead horse, but Club for Growth has put up a new site, attacking Mike Huckabee. It's very well done.

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:

Jeff Crank is a liberal

According to our buddies over at PoliticalPaleHorse, Jeff Crank has announced his finance committee.

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.]

More on Huckabee and a national smoking ban

From National Review's The Campaign Spot:

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?

The Real Rudy

TheRealRudy.Org:



Vote for Rudy's biggest mistake here.

Interesting perspective on "pro-life" and Huckabee

K-Street Mole for Huck has an interesting take on what it means to be "pro-life" as opposed to "anti-abortion" and how that plays out with Mike Huckabee.

While I don't necessarily agree with this take, its certainly worth reading.

The highlights:

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.

Liberal Iowa judge over turns state's marraige law

A liberal Iowa judge has struck down that state's marraige law and is requiring that gay couples be issued marriage certificates.

From AP/USAToday:

A county judge struck down Iowa's decade-old gay marriage ban as unconstitutional Thursday and ordered local officials to process marriage licenses for six gay couples.

Gay couples from anywhere in Iowa could apply for a marriage license from Polk County under Judge Robert Hanson's ruling.

Less than two hours after word of the ruling was publicized, two Des Moines men applied for a license, the first time the county had accepted a same-sex application. The approval process takes three days.

This will impact the Iowa caucus, but in whose favor I'm not sure.

Mark Udall and Hillary Clinton Take Donations From Known Felon

First reported at ToTheRight.

This morning’s New York Times has reported Hillary Clinton will take nearly $25,000 of the felon-fugitive/Democratic-uberfundraiser Norman Hsu’s various campaign contributions and unload them on unnamed charities.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Hsugate doesn’t end with Clinton, because she isn’t the only candidate who benifted from his corrupt cash: Our very own U.S. Senate wannabe, Mark “Screwball” Udall, D-People’s Republic of Boulder, had no problem accepting $1,000 of it on June 25 of this year. And just like with the Abramoff scandal, the dirty-money flow doesn’t stop there.

Udall has received $5,000 from the PAC For A Change, the Barbara Boxer-led liberal leadership PAC, which itself took $2,000 from Hsu. Udall got $10,000 from the Searchlight Leadership Fund, the Harry Reid-steered PAC, which Hsu and his front donors gave a total of $3,000. Worst of all, Udall accepted about $40,000 from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees, which received a whopping total of $82,333 from Hsu and his cohorts.

So, will Udall and his supporters continue to attack Republican U.S. Senate canididate Bob Schaffer for accepting legal donations, or will they clean up their own homes before they worry about someone else’s? We suspect Udall won’t be calling Merry Maids anytime soon.

Breaking: Udall will donate the $1000 donation to the Colorado National Guard Fund.

Rove Humor

For a little Friday humor play Politico.com's Game of Rove.

Huckabee recieves union endorsement

Just how far has Governor Mike Huckabee strayed from the conservative fold?

Today, Huckabee and Hillary Clinton recieved dual endorsements of The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM).

The IAM have decided to endorse both a Democrat and a Republican this election cycle.

"The dual endorsement is intended to involve all IAM members in the upcoming election," said
Buffenbarger. "It is fitting for the union whose early members gave birth to Labor Day to reach beyond traditional partisan boundaries to establish new relationships for the benefit of all working Americans.

On why they chose Huckabee:

"Mike Huckabee was the only Republican candidate with the guts to meet with our members and the only one willing to figure out where and how we might work together,"said Buffenbarger. "He is entitled to serious consideration from our members voting in the upcoming Republican primaries."

Mike Huckabee is willing to work with union thugs?

A round of applause is goes to ALL the other Republicans running for President who ignored the sirens song of these union thugs.

My past concerns about Huckabee, combined with his new union endorsement make it safe to say that Huckabee should NOT be the choice of conservatives.

Al White to run for state senate

In completely unsurprising news, liberal Republican Representative Al White is "98%" sure he will run for term-limited State Senator Jack Taylor's 8th District seat. It has long bee speculated that White would run for this seat.

White is the single most liberal member of the Republican delegation now serving under the gold dome in Denver.

Rumors about possible primary opponents include Gregg Rippy (another of Colorado's most liberal former state legislators) and an as yet unconfirmed report that a local county commissioner might throw his hat in the ring.

As yet there is no indication that a real conservative might run against White.

Problems with Huckabee

Tomes have been written about how conservatives are struggling to find their candidate in the 2008 Presidential race. Rudy, Mitt, John --all the front runners -- have dubious to down-right liberal records.

While many are turning to some of the second tier candidates, especially Mike Huckabee after his surprise "victory" at the Ames Iowa Straw poll, conservatives should take a closer look at these candidates before they jump of their respective band wagons.

Mike Huckabee, of all the second tier candidates, seems the mostly likely to challenge the unholy trinity (McCain, Romney, Giuliani). But Huckabee is far from the "authentic conservative" he claimed to be when he entered the Presidential race.

I can't lie, part of me likes Huckabee.

There is not doubt that he will be 100% pro-life and 100% pro-gun. However, Huckabee's populist rhetoric and big-government solutions have me running scared.

Yesterday, Huckabee called for a national smoking ban. (You can watch the video here.)

While I'm not a smoker, the issue of federally mandated behavior control is at the heart of nanny-government. While I enjoy going to Colorado restaurants and bars and not smelling like John Boehner's ash tray, but there is a larger, small-government issue at stake.

This sort of populism is a branch of the tree of George W. Bush's so-called "Compassionate Conservatism" that he has used to grow the size, scope and authority of federal government. Bush's brand of nanny-big government "conservatism" has expanded government to levels that the Clinton's only dreamed about. To all appearances, it looks like Huckabee is part of this big-government crowd.

Adding this idea to Huckabee's comments about main street vs. wall street, his opposition to school choice vouchers, as well as his references to the "club for greed" should give all conservatives pause.

It is also informative that long time Arkansas political writer John Brummett believes that Huckabee is cut from the same political tactics mold as Bill Clinton:

Mike Huckabee has always had a more liberal side than the left thinks and Hillary Clinton a more conservative one than the right thinks. ...

First, the liberal side of Huckabee:

Fresh from his Iowa straw vote impetus, which came courtesy of his conservative side, Our Boy Mike appeared at the monthly newsmaker breakfast of the Christian Science Monitor. What he pronounced prompted an official with the Club for Growth, the extreme economic conservative group that's been trying without success to bedevil him, to say disapprovingly that Huckabee sounded like he was doing "John Edwards' poverty tour."

At this breakfast, Huckabee declared that:

-People aren't doing as well economically as broad indicators suggest. Costs of health care, gasoline and college tuition have them struggling to break even. The next president must be sensitive to that.

-It's ridiculous to say God belongs to any school of political thought. One's religious values must influence more issues than abortion. Those values should make one an environmentalist who cares about poor people. (He didn't say anything about "environmental wackos," which he uttered last century in one of his right-sided moments.)

-Governors without much foreign policy experience can succeed in foreign affairs, as evidenced by the performances of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and, get this, Bill Clinton. Huckabee didn't mention the similarly situated George W. Bush, coming back later under questioning only to say he meant no disrespect to the current president and that history will judge Bush more favorably than contemporary views.

Part of this is tactical by Huckabee. But part of it is genuine. He is a political quilt with patches of pettiness, meanness, hyperbole, hypersensitivity, ethical impairment, generosity and open-minded compassion.

(H/T: Politico.com's Jonathan Martin blog.)

Bottom line: a Huckabee presidency would be a Pyrrhic victory for the Conservative Movement.

Hillman on private property

Property: Rights or privileges
By Mark Hillman

Anyone who has grown up on a farm or ranch hears this maxim, "Take care of the land, and the land will take care of you." A farmer or rancher who doesn't take care of the soil will soon find that the soil won't produce enough to make ends meet.

But you don't need to be a farmer or rancher to understand the importance of private property rights. What's more, property isn't simply a piece of land or a home. Property is anything you own - your clothes, your car, your business.

For most, our possessions come from how we choose to utilize our own unique time, skills and labor and are selected to meet our specific needs. Moreover, because our possessions are our own, we take care to maximize their use.

Public and private lands illustrate well the stewardship incentives of genuine ownership. Theoretically, we all own parks, open space, forests and such. Yet without paid employees to keep them clean and safe, our public lands would be overgrown, littered with garbage, and overrun by "owners" who enjoy them too much.

By contrast, most private property owners regularly tend to their property. Even owners who never plan to produce anything from their land often invest time and money to improve its appearance.

Once you've made a piece of property your own, for someone to take it from you by force is nothing less than theft - not just theft of your property, but of the time and hard work that you exchanged to purchase it.

Who would do such a thing? Too often, the answer is our government. But let's not forget that government isn't organic. Government responds to the public. When government seizes your property or changes the rules to make your purpose for it illegal or unprofitable, it's often your fellow citizens using government to do their dirty work.

Back in 2003, I sponsored a bill with then-Rep. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, to restrict the use of eminent domain by local governments.
In several cases around the Denver metro area, city councils or urban renewal authorities wanted to condemn undeveloped lands or existing businesses in order to give those properties to developers who would replace the status quo with something that would generate more tax dollars.

At the same time, the town of Telluride - in a case now before the state Supreme Court - condemned a prime parcel just beyond its city limits for precisely the opposite reason: to prevent its development.

Although the owners in these cases were offered compensation, the point remains that, for financial or sentimental reasons, they did not want to sell their property - in some cases, at any price.

Colorado's popular new statewide smoking ban is another example of blatant disregard for property rights. If every bar or restaurant owner in the state chose to go smoke-free tomorrow, that would suit me just fine. But for the state legislature - increasingly comprised of people with no business experience - to pass a law that puts some mom-and-pop establishments out of business is simply unconscionable.

Viewed from a property rights framework, if I am a guest on your property, it's your choice to allow smoking or not. If you are a guest on my property, the choice is mine. If we are both guests of a third party, the choice is neither yours nor mine but the property owner's.

Simply because we outnumber the property owner, we have no right to impose our will on someone else's property. Yet the legislature put the will of the majority ahead of the rights of property owners.

When a mere majority, which has no investment of time or labor nor any legitimate stake in your property, can seize it for their own purposes or regulate it into financial ruin, property ownership has become a privilege, not a right.

Visit Mark Hillman's website.

Gonzales resigns

Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned this morning. The resignation is a day late and a dollar short.

Applause to Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave for calling for Gonzales resignation months ago.

Romney back peddles on abortion

Former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney is already softening his luke-warm position on the sanctity of life.

Last week Romney in an interview with a local ABC-TV affiliate said he believes that state should have the right to legalize abortion.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday in a Nevada television interview that he supports letting states "make their own decision" about whether to keep abortion legal.

"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. "Instead, I would let states make their choices."

Asked by Ralston if it was "OK" with him that Nevada is a "pro-choice state," Romney said, "I'd let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I'm a pro-life individual. That's the position I support. But, I'd let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it." [Emphasis added]

Romney hasn't even won the nomination yet, and is already trying to appeal to moderates. Statements like this, void his supposed pro-life conversion.

Either you are opposed to the murder of innocent children or you are not, there is no middle ground.



Read the full story here.

Government is not the answer

The Economist has an interesting piece on the state of liberalism in America. The piece included the results of a poll, released by the Democracy Corps showing that liberalism is far from flourishing.

83% of Americans believe that if the government had more money, it would waste it.

Additionally, 57% of Americans actually believe that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life.

H/T to NRO's The Campaign Spot.