Lobbying isn't the problem; big government is

From MarkHillman.Com

"When buying and selling are controlled by the legislature, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." — P.J. O’Rourke.

Money spent on special interest lobbying at the State Capitol jumped 14 percent this year over last, despite measures like the so-called "Ethics in Government" Amendment 41.

Lobbyists’ contracts generated more than $11 million in just the first four months of 2007, according to a recent Denver Post report — the twelfth straight year that lobbying expenditures exceeded the previous year.

But before you fall prey to the common misconception that there’s too much money in government, take a step back.

If government didn’t control so much money and make so many laws that reach into our everyday lives, would these so-called "special interests" be spending so much money to influence lawmakers?

Of course not.

Most of us would prefer to keep our distance from government unless our families or livelihoods are threatened. However, the ever-expanding size and scope of government mean that far more people either rely on government or find that its creeping inconveniences are becoming increasingly intolerable.

Combining the coercive power of government with the corruptibility of human nature is a recipe certain to produce abuse. Any system that not only possesses the power to tax, but also to arbitrarily compel citizens to engage in certain transactions while forbidding others, has completely emasculated the disciplines intended to harness those excesses.

The way to take "big money" out of politics should be painfully obvious: reduce the size and scope of government.

In Washington, the federal government is now 250 times larger than it was a century ago. Without reform, inflation-adjusted spending will equal $26,000 per household in only ten years.

Here in Colorado, spending is on the rise and the tentacles of state and local government are expanding into the private lives and businesses of Colorado taxpayers in ways that were unfathomable even 10 years ago.

Neither the constitution nor the courts represent any meaningful protection against populist whims or political expediency. Even if government doesn’t seize your property, the Legislature seemingly has no compunction against micromanaging your business or dictating picayune details in the workplace.

In Washington, most politicians have abandoned the principle that Congress has only those powers specifically listed in the constitution. Instead, they prefer an expansion of Congress’s regulatory authority over interstate commerce to govern activities that never cross stateliness. Instead of adhering to federalist principles, they hijack education or health policy to pander to poll numbers. Instead of tending to the business of government, they "investigate" professional sports.

But it’s not politicians alone who shoulder the blame; they merely reflect what voters seem to want.

Candidates rarely exhibit Barry Goldwater’s courage when he said that his interest wasn’t to streamline government or promote welfare but to defend the liberty of citizens. Voters seem interested in liberty only when they perceive that their own is threatened — not when someone else’s liberty is at stake.

Too many of us have grown to believe that the purpose of government is to solve problems that we do not comprehend or cannot control – expanding government’s mission exponentially. Principles of limited government are virtually forgotten in public schools and, therefore, foreign to most voters.

John Adams warned, "Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people."

Limited government is a principle worth advancing – even at political cost. It’s principles, when adhered to, deter corruption and protect individual liberty against populist whims and political ambition.

Limited government promotes personal responsibility, self-reliance and tolerance by recognizing that not every problem demands a government "solution."
Thomas Jefferson noted, "The natural progression of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

As government grows, the temptation to misuse it for personal or political gain multiplies. Preserving meaningful limits on the size and scope of government protects taxpayers and protects politicians – from themselves.

More Brownback Humor

From PPH

Whenever it seems like there is nothing to report, we just fall back on the detectives at Blogs4Brownback. Up and coming Nancy Drew author Sisyphus exposed The World is Flat against all scientific reasoning. The Flat Earth Society’s website offered Sisyphus all the evidence necessary to throw out scientific fact, photos, and hundreds of years of science…one bizarre website as a matter of fact.

Blogs4Brownback reports:

Nothing that they say or do can change the Truth one jot or one tittle, however. The world is flat, my friends. God has made it thus, and Man cannot unmake it.

The post goes on to say:

What has any of this to do with the Brownback campaign, you ask? President Brownback will control our education department. Unless Brownback wins the election, and radically alters America’s course in favor of Christianity, Justice, and Truth, millions of children will continue to learn the lies and fallacies of the left: that the world is round; that scientists invent things without God’s guiding Grace; that the Earth orbits the Sun…

Kind of scary isn’t it. Reminds us of the Taliban.


(PPH totally nails it, any time I get bored I know I can always check and see what either Brownback or Cox supporters are up to!)

Musgrave is a Democrat???

Here is an interesting post I read from a liberal blog in Weld County.

Originally reported at WideStreets

Musgrave 2.0 is a Democrat

Alright, the headline is a bit of a stretch, but let’s look at a historical perspective, and then, I think you will agree, Marilyn Musgrave’s new persona is not that of a nasty, in-fighting, Republican. I also don’t think we’ll be seeing her pull a negative Nighthorse-Campbell.

For her entire time in the House prior to the 2006 election, it is generally agreed that Musgrave 1.0 did nothing except make things difficult for herself and, by extension, her constituents. Whether Rolling Stone was calling her one of the most corrupt congresspeople, or she was accepting contributions from Jack Abramoff, or buddying up to Tom Delay, she didn’t get a lot done. Hell, I’ve even heard a story of how she alienated the chair of Transportation, and made it difficult for her to get road money for CD-4.

But, that’s all over now, she would have us believe. Now she legislates with her hand across the aisle, and she walks about in her district, shaking hands and pouring coffee. Hell, she even voted against the Pinon Canyon army expansion. Not only that, but she voted for some things that passed unanimously. At the rate she’s going, she’ll have a walk in 2008, since she will be able to talk, for the first time in her career, about how she’s actually doing her job.

But, the most important thing that this demonstrates is not that Musgrave 2.0 is doing better, but how the new Democratic House is totally buggering things. The Republicans let some of the more political bills out of committee so that they could pin Democrats with their votes. I have been seeing a lot of uncontroversial bills going to the floor, but I haven’t been reading about many controversial Republican-sponsored bills getting any floor time.

At the end of the day, Nancy Pelosi is making it hard to get rid of Marilyn Musgrave.

NRA Sells Out Again

From PPH

The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners criticized the National Rifle Association for cutting a deal with the anti-gun advocates in Congress. In an email Dudley Brown, Executive Director for RMGO, exposed the NRA’s sell out of our 2nd Amendment rights.

According to the Post, "Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers."

The email goes on to say, This system, which assumes you are guilty and requires you to prove your innocence before exercising a God-given, Constitutional right, has delayed and denied countless Coloradans attempting to make legal firearms purchases.

If Congress and the NRA have their way, things are about to get a whole lot worse. In a deal the Post calls "a marriage of convenience for both sides," and NRA lobbyist Chris Cox calls "good politics," the failed National Instant Check system is poised to be expanded even further.

Too many people believe that whatever the NRA says is gospel, and nothing could be further from the truth. So we asked Dudley Brown to explain what separates the RMGO from the NRA.

“In short, it can be summed up that the NRA likes to kiss politician butt and RMGO likes to kick it.”

He went on to explain why the RMGO is a no compromise gun advocacy organization while the NRA is a political operation.

The NRA raises money by talking tough against gun control all the while they support it, and the candidates who vote for gun control.

Undoubtedly, there are good NRA programs. But their political division -- ILA, or Institute for Legislative Action – is the reason most people join the organization. That division, however, is one of the main reasons America has an expanding list of gun controls today.

Here are thethee main points some people call the NRA the "largest gun control organization in America":

1. The NRA supports Gun Control

The NRA, while being known as the flagship group to defend gun rights, has been involved in gun control at the margins for decades.

Of the major federal gun control legislation that controls/regulates firearms today, the NRA has openly or privately been involved in passing the legislation:

1934 National Firearms Act - Puts incredibly onerous restrictions on the purchase and possession of "machine guns", suppressors, etc. (which are now termed "NFA weapons"). The NRA actually wrote this legislation.

1968 Gun Control Act - Created the morass of paperwork a firearms purchaser must now undergo, as well as dug the ATF deeper into an area our constitution prohibited it from going. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247 has quotes from NRA's own publication.

1986 McClure-Volkmer - Misnamed the "Firearms Owner Protection Act", this law stopped firearms manufacturers from transferring any fully auto weapons into citizens hands. To buy a machine gun in America (there are currently 366,000 legally owned select fire weapons in private citizens' hands in America), you must now pay a minimum of $10,000 (for an m-16), whereas previous to this supply limiting act you could buy one for $200. Again, this was an NRA-supported and created act.

1994 Brady Act - Some give Sarah Brady the credit, but they should chalk this Gun Owner Registration System to the NRA. http://www.rmgo.org/brady.shtml has a synopsis.

2. The NRA supports anti-gun candidates

In Colorado, this is as easy to prove as looking at the NRA's ratings each election. Former Republican State Senator Dottie Wham, who killed every concealed handgun bill she came across as chairman of the Senate Judiciary, received the NRA's "A" rating. In 1995 Republican State Rep. Russ George ran a bill (with Sen. Wham) to make carrying concealed without a permit a felony (it is now a class 2 misdemeanor). As a reward (for that gun control and for voting against the two concealed carry bills offered in 1995), George was given the NRA's highest rating and asked to carry their concealed carry legislation.

In recent elections, the NRA endorsed State Rep. Dale Hall in a primary against Scott Renfroe (now Colorado's most conservative State Senator) for St. Sen. District 13, despite Hall running a bill to give the federal ATF more power to make arrests based on state charges.

3. The NRA often opposes true pro-gun legislation

Then-State Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (now chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus in Congress) was threatened with lowering her legislative grade by an NRA lobbyist who didn't want a vote on Vermont concealed carry legislation (i.e. no permit
required, which is law in Vermont and Alaska).

Presidential Hopeful Jim Gilmore on Rocky Talk Live

Getting to this late, but Presidential hopeful Jim Gilmore will be on on Rocky Talk Live with Mark Wolf today at 11am MST. Click here to listen to the form Virginia Governor and don't forget to email Mark a question for the Governor at wolfm@rockymountainnews.com

While we at CCP will not endorse a candidate for the 08 GOP nomination, Mr. Gilmore is one fo the few conservatives in the race and would make a fine POTUS if he were elected.

Gazette against Big Brother, for self defense

Today's opinion from the Colorado Springs Gazette makes a great argument for what our Constitutional right to self-defense really means.

Restricting rights
Scotland edging toward knife control

The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the best summations of individual rights in history. It clearly lays out the colonists’ case against the tyranny of King George III in words anyone can understand. It also defines what the signers were laying claim to: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Most Americans are as familiar with these words as they are their own names. But do they understand the implications of the stated rights?

Take the right to life. That’s pretty straightforward; no one has the right to deprive you of your life except under the most extreme and specific circumstances. That implies a right to self defense. Restricting how you provide for your own defense is a limit on your right to life. That’s what gun control advocates either don’t understand or don’t care about.

They cloak their rhetoric in terms that make their goals seem acceptable; they don’t want to ban guns, just put “reasonable” restrictions on ownership, how often one can buy a firearm and what type it can be. That’s not unreasonable, is it? Let’s take a short trip abroad and see how this is playing out in one of the bastions of peace and tranquility the gun banners often point to as an example.

The United Kingdom has long had many restrictions on the type of firearms citizens may own. After the schoolyard massacre of 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, private ownership of guns was restricted almost to the point of an outright ban. That should have reduced violence to the point where police could keep it in check, right? Not hardly.

Remember how gun-control advocates want “reasonable” restrictions? That’s just the first step. That’s how things started out in the UK, but that didn’t stop people from attacking and killing each other. Now, Scotland Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson is going after knives. But not all knives, of course, just the really dangerous ones. According to Jamieson, “Sharp items continue to be the most common method of killing in this country, consistently accounting for around half of all murders each year.”

We won’t argue with the minister’s statistics, they make sense in a society where firearms aren’t very common. But her rhetoric sounds familiar to people in this country who have heard similar arguments for restricting firearms.

Jamieson admits that banning knives outright would help solve her problem, but realizes that knives also have “legitimate” uses. “The vast majority of people use knives in the home responsibly and safely every day,” she notes. She’s going after “non-domestic knives,” those with “a blade or sharp point, and which is not designed only for domestic use, or only for use in the processing, preparation or consumption of food.” Those words are very similar to the language of several laws and proposed laws around the U.S. that seek to ban firearms that don’t have a “legitimate sporting purpose.” H.R. 1022, a bill that would reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, would give the U.S. attorney general the sole authority to decide which firearms fit the “sporting purpose” definition gun control advocates claim they don’t want to ban.

We worry about giving the government that kind of broad power. Jamieson doesn’t seem to believe self defense is a legitimate use of knives. She said in a statement, “Knives can be lethal weapons and to carry them for ‘protection’ or as a status symbol is not something which we can tolerate.” We’re don’t think government officials who don’t believe in basic rights is something the people can tolerate. [Emphasis Added]

New Family Group in Colorado

The group that originally passed Amendment 2 in Colorado, has been reformed to fight for family values.

Please check out Colorado for Family Values' website.

*Please note I've added them as a link under our "Defenders of Liberty" section.

Rudy faces resistence from real Republicans

From National Journal's Hotline, Rudy is beginning to feel the heat:

In Michigan:

...there are growing signs of push-back from conservative party elements because of his stand in favor of abortion rights and statements in favor of gun control and civil unions for gay couples."

The Conservative Declaration of Independence "announced the addition of 27 new signers from West Michigan." Group co-founder/party issues ctme chair Tom McMillin: "The debates removed any question that Giuliani is a pro-abortion candidate with a liberal agenda." [Emphasis added]

Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) "said he considered Giuliani's campaign 'dead' citing his stand on abortion and the fact he is twice divorced."

Even in liberal California:

Giuliani's "pro-abortion rights and pro-gay rights positions have some in the party looking elsewhere for a candidate." Yorba Linda resident Harry Shapiro: "Abortion is a deal breaker for me. I really feel (Giuliani) doesn't follow Republican policies and that if he wins he'll deviate from the Republican way."

and from Catholics:

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution blogs that Macon atty Steve Dillard, the 37-year old self described "grandfather of conservative Catholic bloggers," will launch a CatholicsagainstRudy.com website 7/4. Dillard was "a chief Internet advocate for Judge Wiliam Pryor." A convert to Catholicism, Dillard says "we need to tend to our own house. And we need to hold Republicans to the same standard that we did John Kerry." The site will be family friendly. Dillard: "You won't see the picture of Rudy in drag on my web site. You're not going to see the video of him kissing Donald Trump. I'm not even getting into the divorce stuff. I want it to be on his stated public policy. I don't want this to be a 'I hate Rudy' web site." Dillard said he currently leans toward supporting Fred Thompson (6/10).

...firefighters and unions:

The Westchester Journal News' Blain profiles Sept. 11 Firefighters and Families for the Truth, a group dedicated to dispelling the "myth of Giuliani's much-praised response to the attacks on the World Trade Center". Rosaleen Tallon, a leader of the group whose firefighter brother was killed on 9/11: "I think if they knew the truth (people) wouldn't vote for him. We haven't had a chance to go national, but we will. You can bet on that." Tallon and her group argue that Giuliani didn't do enough as mayor to fix longstanding radio communication problems. Ex-NYC Fire Commiss. Howard Safir, responding on behalf of the Giuliani campaign, "downplayed the protests" and said, "the fact is that nobody cares more about firefighters than Rudy does." More Safir: "the fact is that to this day there are not adequate radios. Radio signals do not go through steel and concrete." Although Tallon's group has "only a few dozen active members," Giuliani's troubles with firefighters extend to other groups including the Int'l Assoc. of Firefighters. IAFF officials "also faulted Giuliani for limiting the number of firefighters involved in the search for victims at Ground Zero and rushing the cleanup at the expense of finding human remains." The IAFF is "producing a six-minute video to distribute to its member unions around the country detailing Giuliani's failures," though a spokesman for the IAFF declined to comment when "asked about the organization's efforts concerning Giuliani." Qunnipiac's Maurice Carroll argues that it may be hard for outside groups to impact the well-established image of the ex-mayor. "Giuliani, he personificed what was going on that day for people who were home watching on television. Can they tear that down? I don't know"

...and African-Americans (this certainly does a lot to dispel the Rudy "elect-ability" myth):

Washington Post'sBacon writes about Giuliani's troubled relationship with African Americans as mayor of NYC. Giuliani "cites his achievements in turning around New York as one of the main reasons he should be elected, specifically highlighting a dramatic reduction in crime." Even so, his tenure was "marked by an almost toxic relationship with African Americans in the city." When he was re-elected in '997 with more than 55 percent of the vote, "he received just 20% of the black vote." Since few GOPers are African American "any lingering tension is unlikely to have any direct effect" on his ability to get the GOP nod. But, his reputation as a "polarizing force in his home town could undermine his image as a unifying figure in American politics" (6/10)

Musgrave getting national assitance

A ColoradoPols reader has posted the full text of a fundraising letter sent on Musgrave's behalf by NRCC chairman Tom Cole.

Read the full post here.

The letter:

From the Desk of:

TOM COLE, M.C.
Chairman, NRCC

Dear,

I have exciting news.

I just spoke with Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave and she has agreed to run for reelection in 2008 and is already laying the groundwork for a successful reelection campaign.

I have committed to Marilyn that I will support her re-election this cycle.

Ensuring proven candidates like Marilyn run for re-election is critical as we lay the groundwork to retake the Majority in the United State Congress.

One of my key tasks as Chairman is to support great, established candidates like Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave early this election cycle -- to dissuade formidable opponents from challenging our incumbent Members -- and to give our candidates a financial advantage if a formidable challenger steps forward.

That’s why I am so eager to help Marilyn Musgrave right now.

Re-electing Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave is absolutely vital to retaking our Majority in the House.

Today I’m asking you to make a major financial commitment to her campaign by contributing $500, $250 or even just $100 as soon as possible.

I hope you will look back at what you’ve invested in the past to help elect Congresswoman Musgrave and go ahead and do so again this quarter if at all possible.

Congresswoman Musgrave is one of our hardest-working Members at all aspects of her job: legislative, campaign and fundraising. The Leadership knows we can count on Marilyn to reliably and steadfastly support open markets, low taxes, smaller government and the other hallmarks of GOP economic policy.

Marilyn was reelected with a 3% margin in one of the worst political environments for the GOP I have ever seen. And despite the millions of dollars spent against her by the radical 527s and the DCCC, Marilyn’s hard work, determination and commitment to Republican principles won out over the negative ads and misrepresentations she endured.

Considering all the factors – I consider Marilyn’s re-election last year a remarkable accomplishment.

And helping re-elect Marilyn to Congress again is one of my top priorities.

Marilyn needs all of our support and I am asking for you to contribute $500, $250, $100 or whatever possible to the Musgrave for Congress campaign.

Marilyn needs to show a strong cash position to ward off potential liberal, Democrat opponents. With your help, we can make sure she is in a strong financial position.

Thank you in advance for your support and participation in this important event.

Best regards,

Tom Cole, M.C.
Chairman, NRCC

NRA sells out gun owners, again

From Rocky Mountain Gun Owners' email alert:

Today's (6/10/07) Washington Post has reported that the NRA has, once again, cut a "deal" with the anti-gunners in Congress over your gun rights.

According to the Post, "Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers."

As many Oregon residents have learned, the background check system, a prior restraint on your rights, is a failure.

This system, which assumes you are guilty and requires you to prove your innocence before exercising a God-given, Constitutional right, has delayed and denied countless Coloradans attempting to make legal firearms purchases.

If Congress and the NRA have their way, things are about to get a whole lot worse. In a deal the Post calls "a marriage of convenience for both sides," and NRA lobbyist Chris Cox calls "good politics," the failed National Instant Check system is poised to be expanded even further. Furthermore, the proposed legislation will punish states that do not supply all the private mental health records the Feds will be demanding.

Cox reportedly said "if the legislation becomes a 'gun-control wish list' as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill." But this is the same line they used on their second attempt to pass liability protection for gun dealers and manufacturers. That bill became a "gun control wish list" and the NRA not only supported it, but demanded that it pass with all the gun control that was tacked on to it.
(http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2005-s397.shtml)

What do gun owners get in return for this vastly expanded intrusion into their privacy? According to the Washington Post "Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. "

Individuals with minor infractions, and military veterans don't get their names removed from government "no-buy" lists, they get the "chance" to "petition" to have their names removed.

We are quite confident predicting that process will be a nightmare if it can be done at all. The recent implosion of the passport issuing system is a perfect example of the kind of morass that all government databases become.

According to the Washington Post "Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system".

If that does not terrify you it should. The current background check system is an intrusive, error-riddled mess. Now NRA and the anti-gunners in Congress want to expand a system that can't keep criminal records straight, and add vast new amounts of data about people's "mental health" records. The abuse and misuse of people's private information is nothing new and it's a very short trip from "court-ordered drug treatments" to "has attended an AA meeting."

No one supports arming people who are a danger to themselves or others, but adjudicating someone's mental health is an inexact science at best. And there is no reason to believe that this latest attack on your right is going keep dangerous people from getting guns.

One of the legislators responsible for this "deal," anti-gun Congressman John Dingell (who has voted with his anti-gun colleagues 96.8% of the time), said "No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon." But of course, that's preposterous. All this law will bring us is more invasions of our privacy, more government databases, and more denied purchases.

Momentum On Schaffer's Side

The Fort Collins Coloradoan reported yesterday that Walt Klein will serve as a consultant on Bob Schaffer's 08 Senate campaign. This comes on the heels of an NRSC ad about Mark Udall's tax and spend ways which came on the heels of the hiring of Pat Fiske as campaign manager.

There was a little snafu somewhere in there with an ill advised campaign logo on the website, but overall the talk of CO politics has been Schaffer, and that talk has been good.

Udall still has the money on his side, but as I have wrote about earlier that is not as big a deal as everyone has made it out to be. At Udalls current rate he should break the $2 million COH mark right around 2016.

I wish I was joking about that one.

If the Bob Schaffer for Senate campaign can keep up with it's current pace and Mark Udall keeps up with his lack thereof then this race won't be as competitive as many had assumed.

Studies say death penalty deters crime

First reported at Yahoo News
By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.

The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations — pointing out flaws in the justice system — has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive."

But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

Among the conclusions:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).
• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.
• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.

The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"

"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.

Critics of the findings have been vociferous.

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."

"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished."

Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.


"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."

The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.
Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.)

Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven't gotten that kind of scrutiny.
At least not yet. The academic debate, and the larger national argument about the death penalty itself — with questions about racial and economic disparities in its implementation — shows no signs of fading away.

Steven Shavell, a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School and co-editor-in-chief of the American Law and Economics Review, said in an e-mail exchange that his journal intends to publish several articles on the statistical studies on deterrence in an upcoming issue.

Hickenlooper is coming for your guns

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper wants to feed the beast. As reported in today's Rocky Mountain News, Hickenlooper has joined uber-liberal group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

The group published a full-page ad in the USA Today calling on Congress to repeal the so-called "Tiahrt Amendment" which prevents the anti-gunners in BATFE from colluding with local police departments to create a national gun registry.

From the RMN:

The mayors' battle is against the Tiahrt Amendment, named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kansas. He inserted a clause in the 2003 Department of Justice spending bill restricting local government and police access to a federal "gun trace" database. The law has been reauthorized every year since then.

The database is collected by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives...

Amendment supporters say the law protects gun owners' constitutional right to bear arms and shields the identity of undercover officers.

D-Day + 1

National Review's resident military history, Victor Davis Hanson has written an excellent piece on D-Day and the lesson we should take from WWII.

Read it here.

Lightning Strikes!

Regardless of your thoughts on Rudy, this is pretty funny stuff.

Reported at The Political Pale Horse

Keep Ron Paul in tonights debate

From ConservativesBetrayed.com:

On June 5, the third Republican presidential debate will be held in New Hampshire and will be televised by CNN.

In these final days and hours before the debate, the Big Government Republicans are expected to put intense pressure on the three sponsors to drop Ron Paul from the panel of debaters.

Don’t let this happen! Sign the petition to keep Ron in the debate, and send the petition to your friends!

This petition is not an endorsement of Ron Paul for the presidency.

It says: “Whether we agree with Ron Paul’s viewpoints or not, we believe that Republicans—and all other Americans—deserve a real debate with more than one viewpoint. Keep Ron in!”

Ron Paul has become the lightning rod in the presidential debates by expressing his conservative opinions. Let’s not let the Big Government Republicans silence him!

Go to www.KeepRonIn.com NOW to keep Ron Paul in the June 5 New Hampshire debate!

Be sure to visit KeepRonIn.com!

What is wrong with Al White?

Sunday's Grand Junction Sentinel (GJS) has given Al White the opportunity to whine about the heat he is receiving for his poor voting record.

White is registered as a Republican, but is FAR more likely to be found voting with the Democrats than his Republican colleagues.

White supports extra-constitutional rights for guys, supports gun control, raising taxes, and consistently votes to expand the power, authority and size of state government.

When he is called out on his horrible voting record he whines to the GJS:

“I don’t think we in the Republican Party should try and identify those of us who are Republican enough and those of us who are not Republican enough,” White said. “Nor should we have discussions about purifying our party, as I have heard several members suggest.”

White said discussions about Republican purity “sounds very Adolf Hitler-ish to me.”

Who is Al White to call ME "Hitler-ish"?!?! Yes, this man is an elected official. More:

“There are suggestions that by getting rid of the likes of Al White that the party would be better off,” White said. “And my point would be that if you get rid of Al White, you’re going to end up with a Democrat, and that Democrat is going to vote for Democratic leadership.

“Al White, regardless of what you think of his votes in support of his district, will continue to vote for Republican leadership in those votes when they come up.

Anyone who talks in the third person needs to have his head examined. What's worse is that House Minority Leader David Balmer comes out and strongly defends White.

However, Assistant House Minority Leader David Balmer, R-Centennial, said he has not heard any rumblings of discontent within Republican circles.

“Al White is somebody who has sacrificed for many years to serve our state and our Republican Party,” Balmer said. “He has labored in the trenches, and I really appreciate all he has done. Everybody in our caucus appreciates the many hours Al White has put in to serve as a (Joint Budget Committee) member, which is often a thankless job.”

Balmer said the Republican Party respects its own diversity and would not force anyone out of its caucus.

Joining the off-key chorus is party Chairman Dick Wadhams:

Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams said that even if party members were upset with White, voting for the governor’s “property tax increase” is hardly grounds for political exile.

“He’s a great legislator and he’s a very good Republican,” Wadhams said. “I do not question his loyalty to the Republican Party at all.”

Wadhams acknowledged that the mill levy vote could be an issue in a Republican primary if White runs for term-limited Sen. Jack Taylor’s seat in 2008, but one vote “does not disqualify Al from being a Republican legislator at all.”

And Democrat Governor Bill Ritter:

During a bill-signing ceremony in Glenwood Springs this week, Ritter commended the Republican lawmaker’s support of a controversial property tax measure.

“He is a person who takes the real issues of his constituency to heart and works really hard to make sure he’s working on behalf of the people he represents and, again, works across party lines and gets a great deal done,” Ritter said.

Following a bill signing in Grand Junction, Ritter reiterated his appreciation for White’s style and promised to always bear in mind the Winter Park lawmaker’s politically risky vote of support.

“Al White showed a great deal of political courage and it is something that I will remember for a long time to come,” Ritter said.

So Bill Ritter, Dick Wadhams and David Balmer all agree that Al White is a swell guy, and should be rewarded with a State Senate seat.

This kind of thinking, of blind loyalty to anyone who claims to be a Republican is what got the Republican party in it's current mess.

It is unfortunate that party leaders like Wadhams and Balmer have missed this important lesson. Support of candidates like Al White will lead to another horrible election year for Republicans.

Why we shouldn't trust Google

Headline from the Drudge Report:


JFK TERROR SUSPECT: USE GOOGLE EARTH FOR DETAILS

Read the full story here.

Schaffer's Website Up and Running

As reported by To The Right, the Schaffer for Senate campaign has their website up.

Though very basic right now, it is good to see that Bob is getting the little things off the ground.

Click here to see the website and here to donate!

Good Press For Tancredo

(As reported by ColoradoPols)

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo had a nice write-up in the Chicago Tribune:

While Tancredo's Republican bid is widely regarded as a long shot, the reaction he has received so far in Iowa shows his campaign can't be entirely dismissed, political analysts say.

He hasn't left much of a footprint in Congress, and yet, driven by an anti-illegal immigrant wind, he audaciously has become a single-issue candidate for president, his fists bared as he derides a bipartisan immigration plan being debated in the Senate and calls his opponents "soft."…

…The longer the problem of illegal immigration lingers, the easier it will be for Tancredo to serve as a GOP spoiler as his hard-line stance attracts voters feeling overwhelmed by their changing social landscape, said University of Iowa political science professor Peverill Squire.

"Here in Iowa, things have changed dramatically in the last two decades and it's probably caught a lot of Iowans by surprise," Squire said.

"Tancredo talking in a way to suggest that some of these changes can be slowed down or even reversed, for some people, may be comforting," he added.

A recent University of Iowa poll indicated that 96 percent of Republicans in the state consider a candidate's stance on immigration to be "very important" or "somewhat important" in their vote, with 57 percent saying they support allowing illegal immigrants to "earn" U.S. citizenship if they paid back taxes and learned English.

With Republicans split over immigration policy, top tier GOP candidates such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney recently have hardened their views.

Touring through Iowa, Tancredo takes credit for the shift, relishing his underdog status with jokes about not being invited to the White House. His outsider's role has enabled Tancredo to speak more bluntly than some of his rivals.

That approach worked at the GOP's Lincoln Day Dinner in Des Moines, where McCain, Giuliani and eight other candidates addressed about 1,000 of the party's faithful. Tancredo grabbed the loudest applause of the night after a lectern-thumping speech that cast his campaign as a fight to preserve American values and Western civilization itself.

Rosen: Protest is going to the dogs

(We have not touched on this issue yet. Mike Rosen does a pretty good job for us though. As reported by the Rocky Mountain News)

Somehow I find it hard to imagine Thomas Jefferson celebrating the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights by depositing a bag of dog poop at the doorstep of his political rival, Alexander Hamilton. When our Founding Fathers crafted the First Amendment, I believe they had a loftier notion of the kind of free speech they sought to protect.

It's a measure of the decline of public taste and discourse that a University of Northern Colorado retired professor of French literature, Kathleen Ensz, would adopt this tactic as the way to express her opposition to the views of a duly elected member of Congress, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave.

Perverse Halloween pranksters have been known to fill a paper bag with doggie doo, set it afire outside someone's door, ring the bell, and watch the poor victim stamp it out. This is the kind of malicious, stupid thing that immature kids do. Ensz is a 64-year-old adult who was a college professor. For shame.

Appropriately, Ensz was charged with criminal use of a noxious substance. This turns out to have been a mistake by Weld County prosecutors. Conviction, under this state statute, requires "intent to interfere with another's use or enjoyment" of property. At her trial, Ensz's lawyers didn't dispute the fact that she delivered a mailer stuffed with dog feces to Musgrave's office. And Ensz's German shepherd didn't deny that it was the source of the smoking gun.

Her defense (Ensz's, that is, not Fido's) was that the intent was political protest - she didn't like receiving Musgrave's constituent mailers - and this was an exercise of free speech with no intent to interfere with Musgrave's enjoyment of her property. Personally, I tend to enjoy property less when it reeks of dog poop, but that's just me.

In any event, the jury followed the letter of the law and Ensz beat the rap. Had prosecutors charged her with something like malicious mischief, they might have gotten a conviction.
That's the approach the authorities are taking in Austin, Minn., where a 22-year-old man has been charged with disorderly conduct for protesting a parking ticket by including dog feces in the envelope containing his payment. This led to the illness and hospitalization of a clerk who came in contact with it when she opened the envelope. Ensz's irresponsible act could have caused similar injury.

Putting aside Ensz's lack of class, what does this say about the mentality of those who regard this as legitimate political protest?

Listen, I get mailers from Denver's left-wing congresswoman Diana DeGette, with whom I rarely agree, but it would never occur to me to do something remotely like this. Civilized people voice their opposition with words, not vile behavior.

When American patriots dumped all that tea into Boston harbor, they were protesting taxation without representation. Today, we live in a constitutional republic with democratic institutions, representative government and free elections. Ensz might not like Musgrave, but she was outvoted by citizens who do.

Free speech is one thing, but no one has the right to physically abuse others with expressions that involve dog feces, pies in the face or spilling blood on someone's fur coat. This is the conceit of smug, self-righteous radicals who reserve, only for themselves, the right to impose their will on others.

Ensz's arrogant, anti-social behavior might seem petty, but mentalities like hers are ultimately dangerous to a civil society. Her actions were only different in degree from eco-terrorists, abortion-clinic bombers and sociopaths like Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh.

Suppose a thousand people who disagree with Ensz, each acting as an individual, expressed their disapproval by leaving bags of dog poop on her front porch. I wonder if liberals who've defended Ensz's act would think that was cute, too.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.

OH THE INSANITY

While we here at CCP have a good time poking fun at Republican candidates on occasion, we have the most fun when we can take on the Dems. But what you ask yourself could be more fun then Republicans taking on Dems?

DEMS TAKING ON DEMS!

The insanity that is now the 4th Congressional District Democrat primary has now reached new heights with the addition of Betsy Markey to the already crowded field of liberals wanting to take on Musgrave in the general.

As of now we have Eric “Every Way” Eidsness, nickname coming from Dem bloggers, whose claim to fame is that he once worked for Ronald Reagan. Yes, in Eric’s mind that will win the hearts and minds in a Dem primary.

Move on to “Angry” Angie Paccione, nickname derived by hideous campaign ad, and any speech she has ever given, who came within 3 points last election of winning in the best year for Dems in over 30 years. “Angry” claims that “Every Way” stole votes from her. Angie forgot the fact that Eric stumped as a Republican and brang up Reagan every chance he got and took votes away from Musgrave, the DCCC poll supposedly showed that as well.

Meet “Boulder” Brandon Shaffer, nickname coming from the small part of the 4th CD that he actually represents. By far the most liberal out of the group, which is saying a lot with “Angry” Angie in the mix. Shaffer is supposedly the DCCC’s chosen one for the Dem nomination.

Salazar aide Betsy Markey, no nickname yet!, is the new kid on the block making a fashionably late entrance to the party. Salazar, er I mean Markey will benefit from having Salazar’s name ID as well as his voting record. According to the Coloradoan Markey has got the backing of prominent Dem representatives in Larimer County, which you know pisses off Paccione.

There was also talk in the Statesmen that another Fort Collins resident known as Dr. Bob, no nickname needed, is also planning on jumping into the race and will go independent if he does not win the nomination. We aren’t counting on him jumping in, but it would be fun to watch if he does.

So let the games begin. It should be an interesting 14 plus months leading up to the Dem nomination. Eric “Everyway” Eidsness is already talking trash about both Angie and Betsy, a pro Paccione website is calling Betsy Markey a “crazy lady”, “Boulder” Brandon is saying that Paccione only wants to run because of personal vendettas, and Paccione, Brandon and Markey all calling Eidsness an opportunist (which I actually agree with them on).

Put the popcorn in the microwave, pull up a seat and watch the fun unfold.

Fun with Candidates

God bless this guy...

From the Political Pale Horse:

Clinton supports "shared prosperity"

Shared prosperity = communism

From the AP:

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) -- Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

he Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

The Real Ronald Reagan

From Human Events
By Michael Reagan
Once again, the left-leaning mainstream media have egg all over their faces thanks to the voice of my Dad, Ronald Reagan, speaking from his eternal resting place.

Over the past week, since the Reagan Diaries were released, the media have focused on everything except what to me is the most the significant result of their publication: the self-portrayal that once again proves the lie in the false picture of him the media long sought to draw -- that of a less-than-intelligent former actor scarcely smart enough to remember his lines much less govern America.

The Media Research Council’s Brent Bozell once accurately described the media’s attitude during the Reagan administration as “fiercely hostile and often indistinguishable from the Democratic talking points of the day.”

Much of that hostility expressed itself by suggesting that my dad was the “amiable dunce” a biographer inexcusably called him to the delight of the liberal media elite, which could never accept the idea that a former Hollywood actor was in the end a lot smarter and had far more common sense than any of them up there in their ivory towers.

In his diaries, however, my Dad revealed himself to be the man I knew, and anything but an “amiable dunce.” Open the pages of his diaries, brilliantly edited by the slightly liberal Douglas Brinkley -- whose honesty and decency allowed him to see the real Ronald Reagan and not the parody created by the media -- and you encounter the extraordinary human being divine providence gave this nation at a time when such a man was needed at the helm.

The picture my Dad paints of himself as he muses upon the events of each of his days in the White House is that of a thoughtful man always willing to speak well of others (including his opponents), always reluctant to criticize his foes, and fiercely determined to crush the evil he recognized in the face of international Communism and to restore America to the greatness that had diminished since his youth.

The man we encounter, brilliant and keenly perceptive as he showed himself to be in the pages of his daily journal, was a simple uncomplicated human being armed with a rock-hard faith in God and an unshakeable belief in the inherent goodness of his fellow man. And he spent a lifetime seeking to find the light of that goodness in everyone he encountered, including the very man who ruled the empire he called evil.

The allegedly sophisticated media elite scoffed at the notion that this simple man, the product of a simpler time, could grasp the intricacies of modern government or understand the complexities involved in forging relationships with other nations. They were shocked, shocked, therefore, when he dared to call the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, mainly because in their secularized view there is no such thing as evil. In their jaundiced eyes, men don’t sin, they only make mistakes.

The media saw my dad as being airily disinterested in anything but the nostrums of Middle America – the “fly-over country” they despise. The diaries, however, reveal him as being fully engaged with the issues of his times, carefully mulling over the problems he faced and making his decisions as to how to handle them based on both his knowledge of the matters and his ability to put aside the current wisdom and cut right to the heart of any problem. Because my Dad was a simple uncomplicated man, the media decided that he was not only simple, but therefore was also simple minded.

Ronald Reagan kept his diary so people in the future would have an understanding of his presidency from his point of view and the vantage point of history, and not that of the liberal media’s dishonest and biased standpoint.

It has to be galling to them to see their carefully constructed illusions shattered by the publication of his diaries and what they reveal about a giant who in their malice they insisted on describing as a pygmy.

Once again, the Gipper’s spirit has triumphed.

The Ghost that is John Cox

From our friends over at The Political Pale Horse

We anticipated the 2008 GOP Presidential Primary being a little strange since it started so early with such a diverse group of candidates, but this is just sad. This from the Union Leader in New Hampshire, “Invisible candidate tries to raise his profile in NH.”

MANCHESTER – Republican presidential candidate John Cox has spent more than a year campaigning in the early selection states of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, declaring himself the true Washington outsider.

He has spent $800,000 of his own money hiring staff, organizing, printing campaign material renting office space, appearing on radio and paying for travel expenses because he wants to see change. But his message has largely been ignored by the national media.

The article goes on to say:

He admits his lack of national exposure has hurt his fund-raising, noting he made calls last week to potential donors. One person noted he was not in the debates. "They may like what I say, but if they don't think I have a chance, they're not stupid," Cox said.

What’s sad about this is the fact that the man sees the writing on the wall. (Well, at this point it’s pretty much up in the air like the Bat Signal.) He knows it’s not a matter of “if” but “when.” But he just keeps going.

On his website, http://www.cox2008.com/ they have a Call To Action attempting to get him in the New Hampshire debate. Unfortunately their talking points are terrible.

The sponsors need to shake things up and add a new face to the debate. We have ten candidates and two groups that are polar opposites. What the hell would he bring to the debate that we haven’t already heard?

By adding John Cox to the debate, viewers will get another reason to watch the debate and they'll see John Cox criticize the other candidates, there will be fireworks thus creating news stories. Yeah, that’s what America is waiting for! Cox’s opinion of the other candidates. Tancredo bashing the front runners and Gilmore saying “Rudy McRomney” seemed to go under the radar. Gee John, you’re right. The Fox debate was boring.

In South Carolina, John Cox beat all of the other Republican Presidential Candidates in the Aiken County Republican Party Straw Poll. Aiken County Straw Poll!!! Why didn’t you say so? Giuliani, Romney, and McCain can just close up shop now. Cox took a county straw poll! Their campaigns are done!

Cox, you are the most pathetic candidate in history. Not ten people outside of Illinois knows who you are. You might as well be a ghost running for president. Seriously, drop out. Nobody is listening and nobody cares.

SURVIVOR

From THE HILL
Survivor
By Hugo Gurdon
May 23, 2007
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) last week said that she “has succeeded in keeping veteran healthcare costs down by working with Democrats to stand up to President Bush.”

The May 18 release added that the third-term congresswoman bucked Bush by preventing his proposed increases for soldiers and veterans from becoming a reality.

There are plenty of GOP centrists who have been critical of Bush in recent months. But Musgrave is a social and fiscal conservative. And unlike other Republicans on the Hill, she defied Bush in his first term, when he enjoyed higher poll numbers.

Despite intense lobbying from the White House and then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Musgrave voted no on the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.

She has been known to rub members of her own party the wrong way. A few months after arriving in Congress in 2003, Musgrave criticized then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young’s (R-Alaska) penchant for earmarks in a letter to Hastert.

Musgrave’s district leans right; Bush won the district with 58 percent in 2004. Yet the congresswoman is a constant target for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Musgrave won only 46 percent of the vote last year, barely prevailing in the three-way race.

State Sen. Brandon Shaffer (D) is considering challenging her next year. And Democrat Angie Paccione, who collected 43 percent of the vote in her bid to oust Musgrave in 2006, may run again.

Musgrave is a talented campaigner, evidenced by the fact she survived the huge blue wave of 2006.

Cory Gardner, one of her campaign chairmen, told the Denver Post, “If they can’t beat Marilyn in the worst environment Republicans have seen in over 30 years, they sure aren’t going to do it this year.”

History is on the GOP’s side; the last time a Democrat represented the 4th district was in 1972.

This cycle, Musgrave is stressing her bipartisanship. She has let her constituents know that she is working with Democrats on agricultural disaster funding and a rural water measure, among other matters.

The headlines of her press releases this month are titled “Musgrave’s Joint Work with Democrats Show Signs of Success,” “Musgrave Joins with Democrats to Ensure Colorado Farmers & Ranchers Aren’t Short Changed,” and “Bipartisanship Works Only when Democrats Don’t Shut Out Republicans.”

The DCCC believes the Musgrave seat is gettable, though it will devote significant resources in the 2008 cycle to protect its vulnerable freshmen.

Usually, members win tough races to get into Congress, and it gets easier in subsequent elections. But Musgrave has gone from 55 percent to 49 percent to 46 percent.

Until that trend changes significantly, Musgrave will be on the DCCC hit list. And while Democrats are working with Musgrave on various legislative initiatives this year, they will likely work less with her next year.

We Have Never Been To Space, NO SERIOUSLY

It looks like supporters of John Cox and Ron Paul have their work cut out for them if they want to compete with their Sam Brownback counterparts.

As I stated before in the post about being called a Heliocentrist Wiccan Moonbat, I have no qualms with Senator Brownback, with the small elephant in the room exception of immigration.

His supporters are just plain nuts though. No reason to even post this as it is not political in nature, but I know you guys need a good laugh.

Here are some new gems from Blogs4Brownback, this time talking about the fact that we have never been to space. In mocking them last time I said that in addition to condemning the earth rotating around the sun, I was also condemning science, the earth being round, and any of the moon landings. It looks as though my last 3 condemnations were not as funny as I thought, at least to Brownback supporters.

"Incidents like this make me seriously question whether or not we’ve ever even really been into “outer space.” I’ve never been there; have you?"
I've never seen the back of my own head either, I'm beginning to question if it exists.

"The third problem I’ve always had with arguments for the space race are that scientists, as a class, seem so smug and dishonest to me. "
Could not agree more. Those scientists in their ivory towers coming up with cures for diseases. PHHH.

"I think we need a dialogue- how do we know that NASA has, in fact, been into space?"
How do we even know NASA exists? I've only seen their scientists and buildings in the movie Armageddon, I know for a fact that Bruce Willis has never even been to flight school. You're on to something Brownback supporters.

"If they haven’t, how can we prove the world is round, instead of being (for the sake of argument) a flat disk with all continents perched on top"
Exactly, we can't prove it. Think about if you were to stand on the side of a beach ball, you would fall off right? Same with the earth, people should be falling off all over the place, hence it is flat. POINT BROWNBACK.

"If President Brownback wants to keep NASA as a back-door means of funding programs he doesn’t want the moonbats to find out about, I’ll understand. I won’t say peep about it, either. Otherwise, he should shut this boondoggle down and kick these hedonists out on their posteriors. Let them find real jobs, doing real work."
I am also not going to say "peep" about anything that President Brownback does not want me to. Moonbats with their science and automobiles will do anything to propel their cause. What's said in the White House stays in the White House.

Musgrave: AG Should Consider Stepping Aside

From the Denver Post

Republican Marilyn Musgrave today joined the growing group of voices questioning whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should stay in his job.

Musgrave, a Fort Morgan congresswoman, wrote Gonzales a letter stating "that, for the good of our country and out of loyalty to the President, you consider stepping aside to ensure that the President, Congress and the county's leaders can rededicate themselves to the important issues facing our nation."

A few Republican and several Democratic lawmakers have called for Gonzales' resignation.

Last week Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said Gonzales should leave. Salazar calls Gonzales a friend, introduced him at his Senate confirmation hearing, and briefly sat beside him with Gonzales recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, addressing the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Several Senate Democrats have called for a no- confidence vote on Gonzales.

On Monday President Bush said Gonzales still had his support, and denounced the no-confidence vote as "pure political theater."

Lawmaker: "Laws dont apply to me"

Irony
Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruit.


A State Senator who lead the charge in California to outlaw the use of cells phones while driving, rear-ended another motorist while talking on a cell phone.

Irony

John Galt: The Heliocentric Wiccan Moonbat

I am not gonna go out of my way to bag on Sam Brownback, though we don't see eye to eye on immigration I appreciate alot of his views.

I like the guy.

So I was intrigued when I read, via PPH, about a blog endorsing Sam calling "heliocentrism an atheist doctrine", their words not ours.

If you are not familiar with 'heliocentrism', don't worry. It is the crazy idea that the earth revolves around the sun, phhh.

I had thought that this was proven long ago, right around the time that it was proven that the earth was not flat.

I was wrong.

The blog in question Blogs4Brownback decided that of all things that would best promote the Senator a post about the earth being the center of the universe would help their candidate the best.

I could not agree more.

In the beginning I mistakenly tried to argue with the blog moderator about the need to take the post down in order to protect his candidate. The moderator proceeded to call me a "Moonbat".

No, I'm not kidding. Oh and then he proceeded to call, not just me but all Colorado conservative blogs, a bunch of "Wiccans".

In the end I found out I was a satanic lefty that believed the earth revolved around the sun.

My apologies. I have no desire to be a lefty, much less a Satanist. So if I have to condemn the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, SO BE IT.

To avoid any more confusion I am also condemning the notion the earth isn't flat, all science, and any moon landing that has "supposedly" happened.

Brownshirts in Baltimore

From the AP:

A city council leader, alarmed by Baltimore's rising homicide rate, wants to give the mayor the power to put troubled neighborhoods under virtual lockdown.

"Desperate measures are needed when we're in desperate situations," City Council Vice President Robert W. Curran told The (Baltimore) Sun.

He said he would introduce the legislation next week. Under Curran's plan, the mayor could declare "public safety act zones," which would allow police to close liquor stores and bars, limit the number of people on city sidewalks, and halt traffic during two-week intervals.

Police would be encouraged to aggressively stop and frisk individuals in those zones to search for weapons and drugs.

Translation: The Brownshirts will be creating a "victimization zone" where law-abiding citizens will be treated like criminals.

Mark Udall's Warchest

With Colorado 's next Senator making his candidacy official for the 3rd time now, way to earn that press Bob, the media is sure to start talking about Mark Udall's warchest and Schaffer's lack there of. While some will ask how Schaffer can compete when he is already a million down, the question people should be asking is what has Mark Udall been doing the past eight years.

A million in the bank is great in any race, but it's slightly puzzling that it is not more. Udall has not had a competitive race since he ran against Carolyn Cox in 2000, he squeaked by with a 17 point win in that one. Every other race he has won by 20, 30 and even 40%.

If you are winning by 20% there is no need to be on television and if there is no need to be on television then you should be saving $250,000 a pop for a thousand points of air time. So what has Mark Udall been doing with all of that money? According to tray.com he has been raising money, we just don’t know what he does with it once he raises it, cause he sure isn't saving it. In his first race in 98 he raised and spent $1.2 million, in 2000 he raised $1.4 million and spent $1.3 million, in 2002 he got a little more comfortable with his prominence raising $1.1 million and only spending $750k, 2004 nearly the same story as 02 raising $1.1 million and spending $800k, 2006 he really turned up the heat raising $1.5 million but spending over $900k as well.

There is absolutely no need to be spending a million bucks in a race where you know you are gonna win by 20%, and remember that is the low end of his wins. You figure at most you are spending maybe $75k for a staff that operates for one year out of two. Add on to that maybe $50k in radio, $50k in mail and another $25k for miscellaneous and there’s your campaign right there.

Granted he could have gotten away with spending absolutely no money and just having his folks show up at parades and going to debates and so on and he would have still won by close to the same margins. To his credit it is good form to have some presence in an election even if you know the outcome heavily favors you. But a million bucks to win by 40% ????? Ridiculous.

After raising approximately $7.6 million, Udall could have easily banked $6 million of it.

Yes, money will play a huge role in the outcome of the 08 Senate race. Yes, Bob Schaffer is a million dollars down in fundraising. But when you realize that it is gonna take over $10 million to win this race and PAC’s are gonna be throwing the green at you left and right, then that million dollars down doesn’t seem as foreboding.

Udall could have had a huge cash on hand advantage right now, probably enough to clinch the race. Fortunately he does not and this race is gonna be the most competitive in the country.

We can only hope he spends his money in this race as wisely as he has in the past.

Musgrave steams ahead

The Denver Post reports that Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, R - Fort Morgan, has been cementing campaign chairmen across her district.

Joining Musgrave for Congress so far:

D.A. Ken Buck, Weld County

Former Senator Mark Hillman, Kit Carson

Senator Greg Brophy, SD-1 Yuma County

Rep. Cory Gardner, HD-63 Yuma County

Senator Steve Johnson, SD-15 Larimer County

Why Brandon Shaffer's "Poll" is bad

Liberal blogs Colorado Pols and Colorado Confidential are celebrating a poll that shows State Senator "Boulder Brandon" Shaffer (Liberal - Boulder County) leading Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, (Great American - Fort Morgan) in Colorado's 4th Congressional District.

You can read the polling memo here.

There are a number of problems with this poll.

First of all, they're not releasing the poll's cross-tabs and methodology. For all we know they polled the people in Shaffer's living room.

Secondly, as silly as it sounds, I am sure there is a misunderstanding among the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack between Brandon and Bob Shaffer/Schaffer.

Lastly, it's May of 2007. No one really cares about the next election right now, and our same Joe and Jane Six-Pack on the eastern plains don't know just how liberal Boulder Brandon's voting record really is...

Iraqi President: U.S. Troops Should Stay

FROM THE AP
By JASON KEYSER,

Iraqi's president, worried about growing opposition in Congress to funding for the war, said Friday he believes U.S. and British troops will need to stay in Iraq for one or two more years to help stem the bloodshed.

Jalal Talabani told students at the University of Cambridge that all of Iraq was safer because of Saddam Hussein's ouster and that many people were living "normal" lives.

"I think within one or two years, we will be able to recruit our forces and prepare our armed forces and tell goodbye to our friends," he said.

Talabani's visit comes as the Baghdad government is growing concerned about rapidly deteriorating support for the war in the United States and Britain. The government has dispatched senior officials to Washington this week to warn U.S. lawmakers that pulling out troops would have disastrous consequences.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a draft bill that would fund the war only through July. The bill is unlikely to survive in the Senate, but it indicates the war's unpopularity among U.S. lawmakers and their frustration with the lack of progress in the Iraqi parliament.
"We are concerned," Talabani said. "We hope that Congress will review this decision and help the American army to stay until the Iraqi army will be able to replace them and to protect the security of Iraq."

He offered assurances that Iraq's leaders were doing everything they could on the political front to pursue reconciliation among divided ethnic and religious factions.

But he gave no details on how, for example, minority Sunni Arabs would be given a greater voice in politics, a change that many hope would weaken support for the insurgency.

He also would not elaborate on another key American demand — to end delays in the passage of legislation outlining how oil revenues would be shared among Sunnis Arabs, Shiites and Kurds.

"We are planning to show some tangible achievements to the Congress that we are going forward for national reconciliation, for national unity, for fighting terrorism and achieving peace and security in our country," Talabani said.

He also expressed support for British Prime Minister Tony Blair' s likely successor, Gordon Brown, who pledged Friday to learn from the mistakes of the Iraq war.

"I don't know him personally," Talabani said of Brown. "All those Iraqis who met him, including our excellent ambassador here, they are praising him and saying that he's a very clever man, capable, smart."

Humor

Humor: 1hu·mor
Pronunciation:
Function: noun
a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous

From Nihilist in Golf Pants Blog:

Top 11 Differences Between Paris Hilton and Al Capone

11. Some people kinda felt sorry for Al Capone when he went to prison

10. Al Capone lived in an era with limited treatment options for syphilis

9. No one was literally killed in Paris Hilton’s St. Valentine’s Day Massacre

8. Al Capone relied less on his family for his success

7. Instead of firing his publicist upon being sentenced to prison, Al Capone would have had him iced

6. If Al Capone had received a sweet plea bargain, he wouldn’t have been stupid enough to botch it by failing to honor the terms

5. Al Capone has been played in movies by Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Wallace Beery, and Rod Steiger – Paris Hilton has been played in movies by Paris Hilton

4. Al Capone didn’t carry a tiny dog in his purse

3. Al Capone never definitively proved that he had no musical talent

2. Al Capone gave offers you couldn’t refuse, Paris Hilton never refused offers

1. Al Capone never called himself the “iconic blonde of the decade”

Schaffer (Bob not Brandon) off to rough start

From National Journal's Hotline:

COLORADO: Pretty Thin Coverage For A SEN Announcement

'04 candidate/CO Bd. of Ed. member/ex-Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) officially announced his candidacy at the 5/12 Boulder Co. GOP Lincoln Day dinner. Schaffer: "After considerable assessment, I've decided I'm going to begin putting a campaign together to run for the United States Senate" (AP/Rocky Mountain News, 5/14).

Schaffer said he spoke with other potential GOPers who "deferred their ambition to me," adding: "We, as Republicans, really don't have the liberty to fight out a primary ... if we're going to win in 2008, than we need to blast through (the primary season). ... Republicans have lost elections because our leaders have not been bold enough in proposing innovative solutions in Washington and have drifted from our long-held claim to the mantle of fiscal responsibility" (Kosena, Ft. Collins Coloradoan, 5/13).

Schaffer traveled to the Boulder Co. "heart" of Rep. Mark Udall's (D-02) CD "to confirm his candidacy." Asked afterward why he hadn't named Udall in his speech, Schaffer said his "first objective is to reform the Republican Party" and rebuild and broaden its appeal to CO voters. "He said during his speech that he will roll out his campaign sometime next year and, in the meantime, will be organizing the campaign and raising money" (Fryar, Longmont Daily Times-Call, 5/13).

The DSCC issued a release headed: "GOP Picks The Last Kid On The Playground" (5/12).

On top of the announcement that he's hiring perpetually losing GOP consulting Shari Williams, this certainly isn't good news for Schaffer's Senate run.

Brandon Shaffer is in for CO-4

According to the liberal Colorado Confidential State Senator Brandon Shaffer, D - Longmont, will make a run for Colorado's 4th congressional district.

Shaffer will face off against Angry Angie Paccione and Eric "Which Party Do I Belong To" Eidsness in the Dem primary.

They all want to run against conservative hero Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, R - Fort Morgan.

From CC:

Shaffer visited Washington D.C. last week with his wife, Jessicca, and after returning to Colorado yesterday he made up his mind to run against Republican incumbent Marilyn Musgrave in 2008. Last week Democrat Angie Paccione filed paperwork to run again in 2008 (Paccione narrowly lost to Musgrave last fall), and Shaffer says that he plans to talk with her soon about trying to avoid a primary.

"Angie is a friend of mine," says Shaffer. "I would hope that she would put her personal ambitions aside to give us the best chance possible to see change in the fourth congressional district and to win that seat."

10 month old receives firearms permit

Aside from the ridiculous IL requirement that everyone have a firearms registration card, this is just another example of silly, needless government.

From Fox News:

In Illinois, you're never too young to own a gun.

That's what one father found out, when he registered his 10-month-old son for a Firearm Owner's Identification Card. Daily Southtown columnist Howard Ludwig registered his son —- Howard David Ludwig, nicknamed "Bubba" — online after the child's grandfather bought him a gun shortly after the baby's birth. Ludwig chronicled the road to gun ownership in a story that appeared in the Southtown on Sunday.

"Anyone who wants to own a firearm or purchase a firearm needs a FOID card," Ludwig told FOX News. "I applied for one of these for my son. Now ironically he can’t buy a gun until he’s 18 years old, but if he wants to own one -- which he does thanks to Grandpa -- he needs one of these cards anyhow."

The ID card, complete with a photo of the tot, allows the child to own a firearm and ammunition, and legally transport an unloaded weapon, even though Bubba has yet to learn how to walk.

Dirty Deceit: Meet Brandon Shaffer

From the Political Pale Horse

PPH Exclusive: Dem strategy for CD 4
This information came from a Political Pale Horse source.Democrats figure if you can’t win the hearts and minds of voters, confusing them into voting for you is the next best thing. Meet Democratic State Senator Brandon Shaffer from Longmont. This is the person the Democrats want to face off against Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. The Four Millionaires Club of Colorado (Bridges, Stryker, Polis, and Gill) is recruiting the state senator to run in an election where former Congressman Bob Schaffer will be seeking the U.S. Senate seat. Their idea is to confuse voters in the 4th into voting for Shaffer when they think they are voting for Schaffer.Colorado Democrats have spent millions of dollars trying to win the 4th and decided that deceit is the only way they might be able to capture it. The money they spent on Stan “The Taxin’ Man” Matsunaka and Angie “I’m So Angry” Paccione has them in an uproar. They want results. So this is how they plan to do it.

CCP Endorses John Cox for GOP Nominee

No not really. But this dude is the most enjoyable candidate to watch do anything since that pizza delivery guy ran for the govs race last year. The Poltical Pale Horse has been following him for abit now much to my amusement. I will say this, the guy has fervent supporters, supporters with potty mouths, but supporters none the less.

Apologies & Excuses

Sorry no posts as of late. Both Josh and I have been very busy with work. We are going to start ramping up again.

Ritter signs Budget, vetos footnotes

Governor Bill Ritter signed the state budget yesterday, but vetoed all footnotes and head notes.

It is important to note that the footnotes contained language reminding legislators and the Guv that Article V. Section 50 of the State Constitution, prohibits state funds from "directly or indirectly" paying for abortions.

Ritter on the budget:

"A budget is a moral document. It's a statement that reflects our values when it comes to investing taxpayer dollars."

With his veto of the footnotes of the budget, does Ritter believe that taxpayer funded abortions are "moral" and "reflect our values"?

Do I need to remind the Guv that the people of Colorado have voted TWICE to prohibit states funds, directly or indirectly, from paying for abortions?

Harvey for Congress???

From Colorado Confidential: (Yes, I do read them on occasion)

HARVEY SOUNDS PREPARED TO RUN…IF TANCREDO DOESN’T

Tom Tancredo isn’t raising a ton of cash (comparatively, at least) in his bid for the Presidency, but that hasn’t stopped many Republicans in his congressional district from dreaming of moving up. Tancredo has said he won’t rule out running for re-election in 2008, but from what I’ve heard, a good number of Republicans aren’t anticipating that he will stay for another term.

State Sen. Ted Harvey would be among a handful of elephants at the top of the list to run in CD-6 should Tancredo not return, but he isn’t looking ahead just yet.

"It’s fair to say I would take a good look at it if Tom would take a move, but I’m not sure where he is in his decision making process right now," says Harvey. "So far he’s been putting out the message that he hasn’t made a decision."

Harvey says that he is in "an awkward position" in looking ahead to 2008 because he considers Tancredo to be a close friend (they worked together at the Independence Institute before Tancredo was elected to congress in 1988). Harvey says that he would absolutely not run against Tancredo – who he supported in 1998 - in a primary, but if he doesn’t return for another run, it sounds like Harvey wouldn’t take long to enter the race.

"I’ve got young kids, so my family has to be totally behind it," he says. "But I’m pretty confident that we would do it."

Contrary to some rumors, Harvey says that he hasn’t begun to put together a campaign team - "I haven’t hired anybody. Like I said, I’m not that far along until Tom makes a decision" - but he has already thought about why he would be a strong candidate.

"I’ve been an elected official in the heart of the congressional district for six years," says Harvey. "Douglas County has a big portion of the district, and I represent two-thirds of Douglas County."

If CD-6 does open up next year, all signs point to a difficult primary battle for a seat in which voter registration numbers favor Republicans by a 2-to-1 margin. State Sen. Tom Wiens, whom Harvey says has been the most active in looking at the race, will almost certainly run, as might a host of others including Wil Armstrong, Rep. David Balmer, former state Sen. John Andrews, former Lt. Governor Jane Norton and Aurora Mayor Ed Tauer.

"There’s a book called the White Pages, and I think there’s a lot of people in that book who would take a look at it," jokes Harvey. "Every elected official in the district would take a look at it.

"Opportunities like this come along once every decade or two."

Or maybe they don’t. Right now, only Tom Tancredo knows for sure.

Might I say, "Well done Senator Harvey!"

This piece is fairly well written, and pretty fair; especially coming from this liberal shill group.

Guns Protect Too

From Jews for the Preservative of Firearm Ownership:

This is a must watch video.