Ritter policies mirror Obama's

Monday headlines in newspapers across the nation proclaimed, “Conservatives score big wins in European Union parliament voting in France, Germany and many other nations.” But this is the opposite of what is happening in the United States as our government appears to be rushing toward an ultra liberal, socialist (or dare we say Marxist agenda) faster than a soft ice cream cone drips onto the hands of a child on a 100 degree summer day in middle America.

And it doesn’t stop in Washington, D.C. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter in his 2006 campaign (and United States Senator Ken Salazar in his 2004 campaign, for that matter) “ran to the right” with a somewhat non-offensive, mild agenda. With no record to run on they both appeared to be palatable candidates to many. What followed in the ensuing years, by any definition and to their detriment, was a liberal, far left agenda and list of accomplishments that would make Marx, Joseph Stalin, Lenin and Hugo Chavez proud. One historical internet reference to socialism suggests that ‘Socialism, to Marxists, is simply the transitional phase between capitalism and a higher phase of communist society.’ Is that the direction you want our State or our Country pursue?

Early this year, and again last week, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped that President Obama would fail. Liberal members of Congress fell all over themselves rushing to open microphones provided by willing media and stating their outrage as to how Limbaugh could wish such a thing upon our President. But we know it was not a personal attack on our president but, rather, Rush’s opinion that President Obama’s policies will destroy this nation. He is entitled to his opinion.

The sad reality is that within his first twenty weeks as President, Mr. Obama’s actions have created a tectonic plate shift perhaps one hundred times greater than the history making 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake with regard to the long-lasting effect in will have on our nation’s economy. Additionally, more than one million lives were lost between the Shaanxi, China 8+ magnitude earthquake of 1556 A.D. (830,000) and the December 26, 2004 Sumatra 9.1 magnitude earthquake (227,898). Yet the economic disaster being crafted by current Administration policies and actions in Washington, D.C. will negatively affect the lives of tens of millions of U.S. citizens for generations to come.

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931-2005) observed "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Americans voted for “the change we need,” and the change we have experienced in the last four months is more than enough to send our collective heads spinning…and more than enough for a Hollywood producer to consider a remake of “Poltergeist.”

In our own backyard, in Colorado, many are paraphrasing Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks by hoping that Governor Ritter, or to be clear his agenda, will fail. Running to the right in 2004, legislating from the left since, and now beginning his 2010 re-election efforts from the middle as a moderate, makes it quite clear that he is the consummate politician…speaking out of both sides of his mouth. While some would suggest this is fraud it is, in the very least, disingenuous. Governor Ritter’s movement on his political positions gives new meaning to "Where in the world is Waldo,” or more recently “Where in the world is Matt Lauer?” Where in the world is Governor Ritter?

Former Colorado State Senate leader Mark Hillman, in the June 8, 2009 edition of Capital Review observation of President Obama stated “His actions, as well as his words, betray him.” The same can be said for Governor Ritter and his cronies and their out-of-control, reckless and irresponsible spending habits.

In 2009: · Governor Ritter and his cronies eliminated the Senior Property Tax Exemption for approximately ten percent of the population, or 450,000 senior citizens. · Governor Ritter and his cronies created a brand new State Fee on Marriage License applications of $20, for NO services rendered; this to be added to the $10 fee a county office gets for providing the service. · Governor Ritter and his cronies created a brand new State Fee for late vehicle registrations. Previously counties could charge up to $10, one time, for late registrants. Now the State wants up to $90 more for late registrations. · Governor Ritter and his cronies raised motor vehicle fees for everyone. · Governor Ritter and his cronies have created a new surcharge for roads and another for bridges. · Governor Ritter and his cronies have forced through a green vehicle bill. I prefer white or silver vehicles. · Governor Ritter and his cronies have passed a bill to eliminate the ability of any vendor to retain any amount of state sales tax revenues to compensate for the vendor’s expenses incurred in the collection and remittance of the tax revenues to the state. · Governor Ritter and his cronies believe illegal immigrants are ‘entitled’ to in-state tuition, and · Governor Ritter and his cronies repealed the long-standing state measure which placed a 6 percent annual growth limit on appropriations to the state’s general fund with excess monies diverted to two spending areas. This, to many, destroys The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), passed in the early 1990s, which took tax-increasing authority away from the Legislature and gave it to the voters. Voters down in El Paso County should note that Senator John Morse was the bill’s primary sponsor.

The list of irresponsible spending and fee happy legislation goes on and on.

It is also worth mentioning that Governor Ritter’s hand-picked Chairman of the 2008-2009 Election Reform Commission said in November 2006 that “access to the ballot for everyone is more important that determining their eligibility to vote.” Really? Really.

The fabric of our great nation is being destroyed in a matter of months as surely as the original American Flag by Betsy Ross has deteriorated over the last 233 years. Thankfully, our flag has been restored and now resides in the National Museum of American History, one of the Smithsonian museums on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. We can only hope that our nation, too, can be saved.

President Obama and Governor Ritter, your reckless spending spree and policies are killing us.

From Europe, hope for conservatism

The left in this country has made much of the big electoral victories that the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 -- and for good reason.  Not since 1977, when Jimmy Carter swept to victory along with huge Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, has there been such lopsided partisan rule in this country. With Al Franken seemingly a lock to win the Minnesota Senate seat, the Democrats are on the verge of a 60 vote "supra majority" that is virtually filibuster proof. The immediate future seems to all be swinging the left's way, and all the things that come with it are now a foregone conclusion: major health care reform, tax increases, deficit spending and a spate of intensive, restrictive environmental regulation. But will it last? As we know, Jimmy Carter's 1977 victory gave way in just four years to the Reagan Revolution -- and though Barack Obama is much more politically sophisticated than was Carter, a former Georgia peanut farmer who was poorly schooled in the ways of Washington, there are many similarities thus far between the two presidencies. Carter took over after a period of eight years of Republican rule and in the wake of an unpopular war and scandal; his campaign was based on a promise to "change" Washington -- to clean up government and restore the nation's image in the world. The economy he inherited was suffering from high unemployment and high inflation -- and Carter's typical "tax and spend" policies made both worse. He oversaw the expansion of government with the creation of the Departments of Energy and Education, instituted price controls and rationing on energy, oversaw the bailout of a Detroit automaker (Chrysler) and pursued Middle East Peace by promoting the cause of the Arab states over those of Israel.

Sound familiar?

But it is not a lost cause, for as Carter gave way to Reagan, Obama's left-wing policies and programs may lead to a new conservative revolution.  In fact, there are now signs from Europe that the purported "death of conservatism" has been greatly exaggerated. As the BBC reports tonight, in European Parliament elections this weekend it appears that Center-right parties have made major gains: "Centre-right parties have done well in elections to the European Parliament at the expense of the left. Far-right and anti-immigrant parties also made gains, as turnout figures plunged to between 43 and 44%.

The UK Labour Party, Germany's Social Democrats and France's Socialist Party were heading for historic defeats.

• French President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP trounced socialist opponents, while greens from the Europe-Ecologie party also made gains
• German Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing centre-right grouping lost ground but finished ahead of its rivals. The Social Democrats, Ms Merkel's partners in the grand coalition, saw their worst election showing since World War II
• In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right coalition is ahead of the socialist opposition, with 36% of the vote
• In the UK, the governing Labour Party is expecting a serious defeat, gaining its lower share of the vote for a century
• Spain's governing Socialists were slightly behind the opposition Popular Party, according to partial results
• Poland's governing centre-right Civic Platform has gained ground at the expense of the Eurosceptic Law and Justice Party
• Early results show Portugal's ruling Socialists dropped a massive 18 percentage points, losing out mainly to Greens and far-left parties

It is no surprise, of course, that the UK Labour party under the inept leadership of Gordon Browne is in trouble, but the general performance of Center-right parties elsewhere shows that the leftward swing of Europe is now at a low-ebb. The victories in recent years of Sarkozy in France, Berlusconi in Italy and Merkel in Germany has put Center-right leadership in power in the three largest European states; should David Cameron of the Conservative party in the UK sweep to power in the next general election sometime in 2010, it will be a clean sweep. Granted, conservatism in Europe is of a different sort than that in the U.S., operating as it does within an extensive social democratic framework. But the fact remains that Europe is showing a fatigue with the kind of leftist socialism that has been in vogue there over the past decade.

Will the same thing happen here? Will America reject the big government policies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid in 2010 and 2012? Or will it take longer for the fatigue associated with big government, over-reguation and high taxation to set in?

My guess is that it will. Whatever Obama's personal popularity, the fact remains that America is essentially still a center-right country that generally dislikes both big government and high taxes. It won't be long until the honeymoon associated with the economic crisis of 2008-09 to run its course; Obama will soon own the deficit spending we are embarking on, and when Americans get a taste of Canada-style health care (and taxes), it won't be pretty.

It took Carter to give us Reagan. Obama will give us another historic opportunity to move the nation back toward individual liberty and economic freedom.

Beware the Sabato slant

Probably we've all seen Larry Sabato on TV during election season. The UVA political scientist is usually portrayed as an unbiased analyst, concerned mainly with the facts, especially statistics, and with political predictions. Well, in this world there is no such thing as "unbiased". In Larry's case, his writings reveal him to be a liberal through and through. The excerpts below from a recent essay of his illustrate this. (The entire text of his essay is linked here.)

Now Larry Sabato is a halfway reasonable guy, as liberals go. It isn't so much his political orientation that I object to, except in the sense that he's old enough to know better. What I object to mainly is the pretense that he's unbiased. That's also what I loathe and despise about most of the media, that they lie not only in the pictures they paint of the world, but even in what they themselves are all about.

Regarding the substance of Sabato's comments:

It is laughable to describe today's GOP as being "fiercely right-wing" and "harsh" in its conservativism. In fact, in the past dozen or so years the party has degenerated into confusion, so that today it doesn't know what it stands for. Conservatives, feeling betrayed, are among the harshest critics of this GOP, and many have advocated forming a third party. For a respected polical analyst to state the opposite of the clear facts is jaw-dropping.

Sabato says it is surprising that a conservative politician would advocate civil unions (as opposed to the oxymoronic "gay marriage") for homosexuals. Apparently whenever a conservative doesn't fit his mental model of "harsh", it is surprising to him.

My advice to liberals: When your preconceived model conflicts with the observed data, stop trying to change the data. It's your fundamental model that's wrong, so you should change it to match the data. However, if liberals did this, they would cease to be liberals.

Also, the stance he describes is not "moderate". As used today, a "moderate" is someone who doesn't know what he believes, and whose highest value is just to cave in to the lunatics and all get along.

Regarding the last point below, I asked David Yepsin whether the conventional wisdom was correct about Romney's Mormonism hurting him in Iowa. Yepsin replied that it both helped and hurt Romney among Iowa Republicans, and as far as he could tell the net effect was a wash. At least in Iowa, Yepsin clearly knows more about this than Sabato does. Sabato was just speculating from a liberal perspective, as if his mental model of the world were as good as actually knowing the facts.

Presidency 2012: The Invisible Primary BeginsA Commentary By Larry J. Sabato Friday, May 08, 2009

We at the Crystal Ball must beg your forgiveness. With fewer than 1,300 days left until the next general election for President, we have failed to offer a single analysis of this historic upcoming battle. With humility, and hoping for mercy, we submit this first update on 2012.

(snip)

Two moderate-conservative Republicans who are fresh faces could give the GOP more of a fighting chance in 2012. Two-term Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota has found a way to win in a Democratic state without abandoning most traditional conservative positions. He is also in his 40s, with a blue collar background, possessing a pleasant demeanor and a sense of humor. (Having been on John McCain's short list for running-mate, he joked to this analyst after Palin was selected that he was "just one chromosome away from the vice presidency.") Whether Pawlenty intends to run for President is uncertain, and he has to decide about offering for a third term as Governor in 2010--always a risk in a Blue state. Will Republicans even accept a less harsh version of conservatism that isn't located in the Sunbelt?

An intriguing dark horse candidate is two-term Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. A proponent of gay civil unions and some other surprisingly moderate stances despite hailing from one of the nation's three or four most conservative states, Huntsman is openly testing the waters, and arguing that Republicans are headed for a long spell in the wilderness without a major ideological facelift. Wealthy and smooth in his public appearances, Huntsman makes a vital point, but undoubtedly he will strain the patience and tolerance of a fiercely right-wing party. His tiny base--Utah has but five electoral votes--doesn't help, and his Mormonism possibly will be a detrimental factor with many fundamentalist Christians, just as for Romney. (snip)

Larry J. Sabato is the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Airborne arrogance

You've seen that frightful image: a 747 flying low across New York City tracked by Air Force fighter jets. Still-traumatized New Yorkers understandably fled. Then we learned that an Obama administration official authorized that costly, insensitive folly as an unnecessary Air Force One "photo op" despite the numberless archived images of the presidential airliner. Why be surprised? Did we trust that these ultra-liberals actually meant their campaign propaganda about compassion and fiscal responsibility?

Consider the underlying psychology of an ultra-liberal. Liberals are motivated by a profound, yet pathetic craving for kudos and control. Their professed concern for our needs, fears and hopes extends only to claiming our votes. Once in power, they reveal their true self-absorbed disregard for you and me.

The liberals' pose invokes a powerful allure, manipulating our emotions (and bypassing our reason). They call up our fears and propose to ease our anguish. But beneath their pretense of concern lies a hidden but massive insult.

Ultra-liberals strive to sell us the notion that we are victims. They cast us in the role of hapless, ineffectual schmucks. What greater insult could they invoke? Simultaneously, they gain the ego-boost of seeming superiority as our rescuers. And we get to pay the enormous bill!

Personally, I don't buy it not their designation as victim nor their stupendous vote-buying expenditures. Paying their debt would indeed make me THEIR victim.

That Air Force One incident illustrates their total lack of respect or regard for us. You might want to remember this illustrative incident the next time an ultra-liberal proclaims his/her dedication to our welfare.

'Suicide of West' imminent?

National Review listed James Burnham's "Suicide of the West" as one of the top 10 books that nudged America toward political conservatism in recent decades. (See rankings in their 50th anniversary edition.) Burnham was a young Trotskyite who turned against Communism and in his later years wrote for National Review. He wrote this book in 1964.

Burnham's thesis was that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

For a young person unschooled in political thought, such as I was, this thesis was difficult to believe. Both JFK and LBJ were aggressive in their Cold War liberalism, which in those days included a strong pro-American component. Even the true believers on the Left assured us that they were pro-American, despite appearances to the contrary. Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs and I.F. Stone were all leftist idealists, they never actually betrayed their country. Or so we were endlessly and emphatically told in the mass media and in our classrooms.

Well, it turned out that Burnham and his fellow conservatives were correct, and we had been lied to on virtually all fronts. We now know that Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Stone and many others on the American Left spied for the Soviet Union for years.

The leftists were not only for collectivism, they were against America and most of what it stood for. Their virulent assaults against the free market, against a strong military and against traditional American values were all of a piece. They regarded liberal journalists and liberal officials in all three branches of government as "useful idiots" and as loose allies in the steady drip of daily propaganda and assaults against America.

By now we are much further along in this process. Some of the most prominent liberal journalists and liberal Democratic leaders in government are no longer acting as merely useful idiots. Some of them are at last revealing themselves to be more malevolent than that.

This is most clearly seen in their move to prosecute those in the Bush admininistration who authorized the enhanced interrogation techniques (which they falsely call "torture") against a few of our top terrorist enemies.

We should recall at this point that the laws of war and the Geneva Convention clearly distinguish between (1) conventional soldiers and (2) nonuniformed terrorists who hide among civilians and attack from schools, mosques and civilian residences. Conventional soldiers, when captured, must be treated humanely. Nonuniformed terrorists, when captured, may be summarily shot.

Unfortunately, instead of shooting these vicious predators on the spot, our government unwisely treated most of them better than we have ever treated prisoners of war. They get better food in prison than our schoolchildren get in school cafeterias. There have been strict limits even on the interrogation techniques.

In three highly supervised cases waterboarding was employed to get vital information that saved many innocent lives. (Many of our own soldiers and sailors undergo waterboarding as part of their training, hence it is absurd to deem it "torture".)

But now many voices are telling us that this was unacceptable, that America's leaders must be punished, rather than thanked and honored, for this great so-called evil. They quote the Constitution much as Satan quotes Scripture, and they pretend to defend both America and the Constitution. However, this new thrust is clearly intended to demoralize those who are defending the country and to reduce or destroy America's future effectiveness in fighting our enemies.

Here at last the Left is taking a position that is so clearly anti-American that there is very little room at the margin for "useful idiots". Some Democrats on my "lunatic" list claim that foreign terrorists captured on the battlefield should be treated as if they were American citizens with Constitutional protections, but even for them that level of imbecility is not credible. Political maneuvering aside, their position can be seriously maintained for long only by the actual enemies of the United States.

For benefit of the lawyers and other confused citizens, let us apply the Left's argument in mirror image so that everyone can see just how bonkers it really is.

The FDR administration put more than one hundred thousand Japanese American citizens in concentration camps during World War II. This was clearly a much more heinous crime against humanity than waterboarding three Al-Qaeda terrorists. We should therefore prosecute all those Democrats still alive who had anything to do with perpetrating that great injustice. Correct?

The LBJ administration entered the Viet Nam conflict on the false and exaggerated claim of being attacked near the Gulf of Tonkin. This resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers and sailors and of millions of Asians. We should therefore prosecute all those Democrats who had anything to do with perpetrating and acting on that falsehood. Correct?

The Reagan administration's retributive attack across Libya's "line of death" in 1986 happened to kill Gaddafi's innocent young daughter. We should therefore prosecute all the Republicans who had anything to do with that attack. Correct?

The Obama administration's attacks on Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorists using Predator drones and other means also produce collateral damage, killing innocent children and others, without benefit of legal hearing or trial by jury. Also the suspects are not even given their Miranda warnings. We should therefore (as Ted Olson has recommended in a recent thought experiment) prosecute everyone in the Obama administration who has anything to do with these attacks whenever they occur. Correct?

No, of course these assertions are clearly not correct. The concept is intended to be used only against the "evil" Bush administration, which in fact was trying with the best of intentions to protect America in a legally acceptable manner.

However, war is not police work, never has been, and never can be. The concept of prosecuting actions like this, if taken seriously, would degrade or destroy our ability to defend ourselves. But that is the whole idea. Our domestic enemies will now have another powerful new tool to weaken us, if we have become so confused and lacking in will as to allow it.

In summary, James Burnham was both correct and extremely prescient. Liberalism is indeed the ideology of Western suicide. We will see this in spades during the next four years.