Saturday, October 22

CO Denver Post in Favor of all Proposed Tax Increases

Cross posted on my Diary:

I suppose this is to be expected, but I was still amazed at what I discovered in today's Denver Post endorsements list.

On state ballot measures, Denver Post is endorsing both referendum C & D. Now, C is being debated, but to let the state borrow money on income that is not guaranteed is simply insane. But, wait! There is more!

In Aurora, Issue 1A--a property tax increase--Denver Post says YES. In Denver, Issue 1-A--a hotel tax increase--Denver post says YES. In Lakewood, Question 2A--a sales tax increase--Denver Post says YES.

The Denver Post also lists City Council, and School board members it is endorsing. I don't have the time tonight to look up each name, but I wonder how many of those names are registered Democrats. I would bet most of them.

I realize many of you may be asking, "What's the big deal...Its to be expected." But, to me, its important that this ALWAYS be a big deal. Bloggers need to continue saying it, calling them out on it, and making the public continually aware of the bias in the media. It matters, because many rely on the media for information and insight--of which they provide with a political agenda in mind. Ultimately, a biased mainstream media weakens our nation and our liberties.

Thank God for the blogsphere and independent media. They have taken the baton and risen to the call. Perhaps, the truth be told, mainstream media is well on the way to being irrelevant.

For Now, I Still Support the Miers Nomination

TruthLaidBear has made a call to all bloggers to go on record with their stance on the Miers nomination.
I will implement some code this weekend to search for the phrases above, and generate a running list of bloggers for, against, and neutral on the nomination. This will be much more interesting than a standard online poll, as it will ensure "one-blog-one-vote", and avoid the usual ballot-stuffing silliness of online surveys.
I, of course, have made various posts here in favor of Miers nomination. I thought this would be a good time to give an update on what I have been seeing in the media and in the blogsphere on the Miers nomination and the ensuing battle.

I have to be honest, at this time with the events of the past weeks, I am beginning to question whether I made the right endorsement. But, a strong reason for my endorsement still stand--Bush has a record of making the right choice on nominations and I trust that. Miers may not be quick on her feet, and but I still believe she is professionally qualified--granted, within my limited knowledge of legal practice. Most of all, I make my endorsement based on the words of others with further knowledge and insight than mine.

So, in short, at this time and for now, I'm repeat my endorsement for the record: I support the Miers nomination. You can find my previous endorsement posts here and an index of all my posts related to Miers here.

Friday, October 21

Quote of the Day: Disregarding the Eternal Rules of Order and Right

Via CitizenLink email.
"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained." -- George Washington

Cuban's Blood Boils: Join CODEPINK for New Year’s in Cuba

This from Val over at They choose to propagate the myths and lies about Castro's Cuba, and ignoring the suffering and deaths of thousands who have died at the hands of a murderer! This is not what I call a love for liberty. Read the storybelow and Val's comments, and follow the discussion over at

Here's something to get you all riled up for the weekend, via commenter Retread, from LGF, we have the following:

Join CODEPINK for New Year’s in Cuba December 27-January 2, 2006

Cuba is one of the most beautiful and fascinating countries on Earth—and George Bush says you can’t go there. Well, we’re going anyway, and we invite you to join us!

This New Year’s CODEPINK will be organizing a large group of fun-loving and freedom-loving Americans to break George Bush’s ban on travel to Cuba. Join co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, together with Academy Award winning producer Paul Haggis, as we visit with farmers at their co-ops, doctors at their family clinics, dancers at the National Folklore Group, and young people at the ballpark. Don’t miss this historic chance to dance salsa, drink mojitos, and visit beautiful beaches—all while defending our constitutionalrights!!!

Hey, no trips to the gulags? No visits with dissidents? What about the Ladies in White, ladies?

The federal restrictions barring travel to Cuba are not only counterproductive and outmoded in this post-Cold War context, but also a violation of our constitutional freedom to travel.

Yes, because it's all about you, right Pinkies? Guess those women in Cuba that have to sell themselves for basic necessities will just have to wave at ya'll from afar? Unless, of course, you will be acquiring their services, ladies.

The Bush administration says we can only travel to Cuba if we have immediate family there. Well, we do. Cubans ARE family—Somos Familia. And while we’re there, we’ll be holding a mutual adoption ceremony in order to demonstrate that family transcends political boundaries. In the ceremony, each participant will be paired with a Cuban brother or sister. After all, we are all part of one human family and there should be no artificial barriers dividing us.

Well alright!!! Somos familia!!! Make sure you try to bring your newly adopted family member back for a visit to the states.

Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard: Deeply Concerned with the Current Deficit

On October 4th, I wrote a letter to Colorado's Sen. Allard and Salazar asking for their comments and commitment to cutting pork. The first response to my letters came into my email box this morning from senator Wayne Allard.

Below is the full email text. In it, the senator states he is "deeply concerned with the current deficit, particularly the portion of it comprised of new discretionary spending. Every time new programs are added to the Budget a long term fiscal obligation is created." He concluded his response saying, "If we must change Senate rules, current law, or even amend the Constitution to instill fiscal discipline in this process so be it."

These are strong words, and I appreciate the Senator's willingness to make it on the record. Myself, as I am sure many other voters, now hope to see results in a leaner government that spends less.

The great problem in our nation is that there are still millions who continue to demand much from our government, and live out their lives with an entitlement mentality.

This is my call to bloggers, activists, educators and regular citizens:
Educate those in your sphere of influence about the importance of hard work, self-reliance, and small government. Until our citizens better understand the harm that big-government does to our nation's economic prosperity, they will continue to pressure government politicians and leaders for more and more pork spending. State residents should NOT send their government leadership to Washington to try to juice it of more funds. The battle starts with the voters, and finishes with a leadership that is willing to make a stand and do the right thing.
October 21, 2005

Dear Josué:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding pork barrel spending and efforts to change Senate rules to restrain this type of irresponsible behavior. This is a topic very close to my heart and I appreciate your interest in this topic.

As you may know, I am a senior member of the Senate Budget Committee. The primary focus of this committee is to establish a general fiscal outline for the coming fiscal year. I believe that the most important thing the federal government can do is maintain a balanced budget and eliminate the debt, helping to ensure that economic stability will be a legacy for our children and grandchildren. I am deeply concerned with the current deficit, particularly the portion of it comprised of new discretionary spending. Every time new programs are added to the Budget a long term fiscal obligation is created.

A significant part of each year's budget debate is the construction of new and stronger enforcement and accountability tools. The FY04 Resolution, for example, included enforceable spending caps for 2004 and 2005, limitations on non-defense emergency spending, and a re-authorization of PAYGO enforcement which restricts the creation of new mandatory spending
or tax cuts not in the budget.

The Resolution also included language requiring authorizing committees in the House and Senate to identify instances of waste, fraud and abuse in mandatory spending programs. This is significant for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that mandatory spending programs, which account for two-thirds of all federal spending, are often left to chart their own course without the scrutiny often reserved for the discretionary "pork" programs.

In addition, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), introduced S. 19, the Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future Act. S. 19 would amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) to extend through FY 2005 the spending caps for discretionary, highway, and mass transit categories in new budget authority and outlays. This bill also declares that Congress should enact a limit on total discretionary spending for FY 2006. S. 19 has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Budget.

I believe this year's budget represents a good starting point, but much remains to be done. It is my intention to work with Budget Chairman Gregg to continue to study all methods available to restrict new spending, particularly un-authorized and "pork" spending. In short, I will be open to any and all proposals that will effect greater discipline. If we must change Senate rules, current law, or even amend the Constitution to instill fiscal discipline in this process so be it.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns. I look forward to hearing from you again. If you would like more information on issues important to Colorado and the nation, please log on to my website at


Wayne Allard
United States Senator
Technorati tag: .

Thursday, October 20

CO Referendum C & D: Maybe it’s how we are spending the money, not how much

The following excerpt are from Colorado Pols. Excelent argument for why I am against Referendum C & D. I have to repeate here the key point: "Education funding and reform aren’t the only things to consider when voting for C & D - vote how you will - but those spreading the scare tactics about schools ought to be ashamed of themselves." Here is the rest of the excerpt.
…I beg someone to logically refute the following facts:

1. Colorado spends more per pupil in real dollars on K-12 education now than ever before. In fact, Colorado’s per-pupil spending was at an all-time high right BEFORE Amendment 23 was passed… and has reached an all-time high each year thereafter.

2. Colorado spends less than 58 percent of education dollars in the classroom. (Maybe it’s how we are spending the money, not how much….)

3. From 1992 to 2003, Colorado significantly improved its ranking on national test scores while its national ranking in per-pupil spending went down.

4. The reason Colorado’s ranking went down is because our per-pupil spending increases weren’t as big as the national average.

My goal for listing these surprising facts (of which there are many more) and the following discussion is to make some people read and think about a different point of view.

Maybe, just maybe, people who are opposed to unending spending increases for K-12 education care just as much as you about kids and schools. Maybe they believe in a sort of “tough love” that asks for school leaders to consider new, more effective ways of getting things done rather than just holding their hands out.

After all, public education’s central mission is to educate each child in the system to his or her fullest potential, not to provide jobs to adult teachers or administrators. Whose interests should we be looking out for first?

Maybe the teachers union isn’t evil, just misguided because many of its interests collide with what is best for students. Maybe educrats aren’t evil, just that the vast majority are so focused on protecting the status quo and their own interests that the only fault they can ever see is that there isn’t enough money - never enough. And maybe opposing their agenda from time to time doesn’t make you an enemy of education or someone who hates kids and/or teachers.

My proposal is to remold the public education system with constructive incentives that promote its central mission, maximizing the investments of taxpayers for the good of society. Education tax credits, charter schools, meaningful reforms of pay-for-performance and tenure, in tandem with streamlined and effective accountability measures - these point the way toward a better system. Continuing to feed the system with more & more money without promoting such reforms is not compassionate but naive.

Education funding and reform aren’t the only things to consider when voting for C & D - vote how you will - but those spreading the scare tactics about schools ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Hat tip: FireStorm Strategies


Outragous news coming via "A Certain Slant of Light" on activist judges posing as legislators.

This time around the 2nd District Court of Appeal in California has ruled that an employer in Torrance, California, must pay worker's compensation benefits to an illegal alien it had employed and who claimed an on-the-job injury.
The Houston Chronicle (registration required) has the story.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled in a case involving Torrance, Calif.-based coffee roaster Farmer Bros. Co., which had tried to deny workers' comp benefits to an employee who was in the country illegally.

Farmers Bros. argued that federal immigration laws superseded the state's workers' compensation system.

The plaintiff, Rafael Ruiz, 35, claimed he injured his shoulders, back, neck and hands by lifting sacks of coffee beans. There was no immediate comment from Farmer Bros.

More comments from "A Certain Slant of Light". You can read the rest of his comments here.
Wonder if this guy who couldn't handle sacks of coffee beans without hurting himself scaled a border fence with no trouble? Wonder what portion of his W/C payments will go back to Mexico in the form of remittances?
Tags: Politics, Current Affairs, California, Homeland Security, Mexico, Immigration, , , News,

Blogs for Bush: Getting Serious About Illegal Immigration

Interesting supportive comments from Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush on recent statements on the news about illegal immigration and the goal to return every illegal immigrant back to their home country.
We've had a lot of comments of late from some conservative quarters that President Bush doesn't listen to the conservative base - that he just takes it for granted. I'd put it differently - a President can do a lot of things, but he can't do everything all at once. This President has been concentrating on a few issues (you know, the war and what not) and so other issues - some of them of vital importance to various parts of the conservative coalition - have been left on the sidelines. The answer to this is not to carp and complain, but to press the issue.
You can read the statements by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao to Congress via the Washington Times. Over at Blogs for Bush, Noonan also writes:
I've been a supporter of President Bush's guest-worker program (falsely called an amnesty program by critics) right from the start - the plain fact of the matter is that the illegals do jobs that Americans are unwilling to do - the problem is the illegal crossings of the border and the fact that so many illegals come across that it not only adds huge costs on our society (for health care, law enforcement, etc), but also drives down the wage level for the people coming to work. A guest-worker program allows us to gain control of the border while at the same time matching wanted workers to open jobs.
Tags: Politics, Current Affairs, California, Homeland Security, Mexico, Immigration, , , , News,

The Importance of English for Immigrant Assimilation

Readers have been posting good comments on the problem with bilingual education and the dominance of Spanish in immigrant states such as California. LaLinda points out the direct effects of bilingual education to drop out rates! Just for that reason, states should think twice about this sort of multiculturalistic well-intentioned social policies.

In California, as in any state in the union, English is a language of great importance to learn! Anybody who denies this, is not living in the real world. Bilingual Ed in California was voted out by the voters and now they will probably find another proposition that will have to be voted on regarding the 'dual language' idioticy that is now in use in some school throughout the state. It was proven that bilingual ed caused too many Latinos to drop-out of school in this state. Since it was eradicated, the number of drop-outs has decreased and more and more Latinos are enrolling in college. If this 'dual language' mentality continues, we will see many dropping out of school again. For those who think that English is not important in this country, they will be in for a big surprise when they find themselves not able to progress for lack of good English skills.
Two readers, Dingo and Timmer expressed that American's tend to not worry about learning foreign languages when living abroad, and are arguably doing the same things Latino immigrants do. Perhaps they have a valid excuse in that English has become the defacto business world language.

I agree with you that learning English is important not only to the vitality of an individual in this country, but also the cohesion of this country.

That being said. I can't count the number of friends I have had that have lived and worked in foreign countries (mainly Europe) and bothered to learn the language.

...many Americans who go abroad are guilty of the same attitudes - because they find that English is spoken pretty much everywhere. Fine for when you visit, but I would still encourage folks to learn the language if you live there for any length of time. It helps in so many ways, not least of which it helps you understand the people!

I'll finish with this exhortation from a reader, Pat in NC, to all immigrants.
Retain your cultural heritage--it is important. Learn to speak English because that is the common language of the USA. People want to live here for some reason and that reason should be sufficient to want to become an American by assimilating. Prior to the heavy increase in Spanish speaking immigrants it was expected that English would become the second language of immigrants. My forbearers learned even though German was spoken at home. Irish, Italian, French, Chinese, Japanese all learned the common language in order to become truly American.
Update: Corrections via feedback from Dingo. What he meant to say is that most American's don't care to learn the language when living abroad.

Tags: Politics, Current Affairs, California, Homeland Security, Mexico, Immigration, , , , News,

Wednesday, October 19

The Dangers of International Courts and Loss of Sovereignty

A Spanish judge is going out on a limb in issuing an arrest warrant for 3 American soldiers. What a joke!
Jose Couso, who worked for the Spanish television network Telecinco, died April 8, 2003, after a U.S. army tank crew fired a shell on Hotel Palestine in Baghdad where several journalists were staying to cover the war.

Reuters cameraman Taras Portsyuk, a Ukrainian, also was killed.

The Spanish judge said he issued the arrest order because of a lack of judicial cooperation from the United States regarding the case.

U.S. officials insist the soldiers believed they were being shot at when they opened fire.

Following the Palestine incident, Secretary of State Colin Powell said a review of the incident found that the use of force was justified.

In late 2003, the National Court, acting on a request from Couso's family, agreed to consider filing criminal charges against three members of the tank crew.

Tuesday, October 18

In California, Spanish is more important than English

I wish this was not so, but it is what it is. To be clear, I am not against legal immigrants retaining the knowledge and history of their culture, including language, as long as there is an intentional process of assimilation--which must include basic history of America, and a grasp of the English language. It goes to show for the need for better efforts towards integration and assimilation in the major immigrant states. This quote comes via IconCulture email Iconwatch.
In California, Spanish is more important than English. I haven't found any inconvenience because I don't speak English & I don't need to speak English. If you can speak Spanish, you can drive, employers can have clients, you can order in restaurants, you can do anything.


Illegal Immigration Reform on the News

It seems there is a lot of attention on illegal immigration coming from D.C. had a couple interesting stories.

The first comes from the Bush White House, who is reportedly mounting an immigration offensive. You can read the whole story from here.
The Washington Post reports the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing today on "comprehensive immigration reform."

According to the Fort Worth Star Telegram, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao will testify at the hearing and are expected to outline the Administration's latest plans for an immigration reform. The Star Telegram also reported White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan suggested that President Bush may now be advocating a more comprehensive approach to immigration reform that includes a temporary worker program as well as "steps to strengthen our border and improve the interior enforcement of our immigration laws."

This comes after Karl Rove held numerous meetings with congressional leaders.

The administration has assembled a coalition of business interests to help advance its immigration reform proposals. Business Week suggests that the administration may find itself in the middle of another fight between business groups and conservatives over immigration reform. According to Business Week, one of the administration's allies in the immigration reform battle, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will be highlighting the McCain-Kennedy legislation today at an event co-sponsored by American Immigration Lawyers Association, League of United Latin American Citizens, Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods, the National Association of Home Builders, and other fans of the administration's guest-worker idea.

I'm concerned about some of the statistics and pol results reported. I don't know how accurate it is, but this long-going problem of illegal immigration is creating a strong backlash towards immigration in general. Let's see what the Administration can come up with.

The AP is also reporting statements by the Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in regards to illegal immigrants. This is strong wording coming from this high in the administration.

"Our goal at DHS (Homeland Security) is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions.

"It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year," Chertoff told a Senate hearing.

Thousands of "Mexicans who are caught entering the United States illegally are returned immediately to Mexico. But other parts of the system have nearly collapsed under the weight of numbers. The problem is especially severe for non-Mexicans apprehended at the southwest border," Chertoff explained.

"Today, a non-Mexican illegal immigrant caught trying to enter the United States across the southwest border has an 80 percent chance of being released immediately because we lack the holding facilities," he added.

"Through a comprehensive approach, we are moving to end this 'catch and release' style of border enforcement by reengineering our detention and removal process."

The AP could not resist lumping illegal economic immigrants, with the political and religious refugees risking their lives and coming from Cuba. It is one thing to allow Mexicans, Central and South American's come into the US as they seek a better economic life, as a result of the corruption of their governments. Cuba, on the other hand, suffers from a violent, criminal, and inhumane regime that murders its citizens for their religious, political, and philosophical views. I will say, there are now nations going in the same direction, and political refugees should be processed according to their circumstance--Venezuela for example.

Some additional comments from Streiff over at
This clear and unambiguous policy is long overdue. The out of control nature of our southern border has mutated from an suppurating sore to a threat to national security as Mexico, slowly and inexorably, loses control of much of its territory.

This is a huge marker to lay down unless it is done so in a spirit of seriousness. The sheer volume of illegals apprehended combine the Augean Stables with the Rock of Sisyphus.
I agree with Streiff that I hope that the Bush administration actually follows through and starts doing something about illegal immigration. This is not to say I will be in complete agreement with all aspects of their strategy, but some action is better than no action, regardless of how imperfect it may be.

Monday, October 17

Referendum C & D -- Compassion, True and False

For some that may wonder why it is I am against Colorado's referendum C & D, despite support by many Republicans and businesses, I would like to suggest you read this article. Matt Kaufman at articulates with great insight the dangers of government-forced "compassion". Referendum C & D supporters may have great compassionate motivations for forcing the rest of us CO residents to fork over our hard-earned money, but it does our State no good.

My argument is that while the motives may be great, the methods are not the best or the right ones. If you want to argue that there are problems with TABOR, thats fine, but weakening it is not the solution, and giving more money to our State politicians to spend is not going to improve anything.

You can argue for some government programs on the grounds that they're necessary, and that no other alternatives will do: The argument may be wrong in many cases, but it's not inherently dishonest. You can't, however, seriously claim that any government programs are driven by compassion. Compassion, as I'm wont to point out, is voluntary by definition; coerced compassion is a contradiction in terms. And there's nothing voluntary about government. Government, by nature, is all about coercion: You pay up, or else. That brute fact doesn't change whether a state is popular or unpopular, a democracy or a dictatorship; it's still forcing some people to pay into programs they didn't choose to fund on their own. Those who run the state know this full well. They don't settle for inviting folks to contribute to even the most (allegedly) popular programs. They'd never consider setting the precedent.

Again, you can argue over whether force is necessary in a given case. You can argue over whether it's wise or just. But you can't get away with the Orwellian claim that force is choice. Force can at best restrain vice, but it cannot create any virtue — not compassion, not charity, not love. And to pretend otherwise is likely to end up making a mockery of those very virtues.

I got firsthand experience of this reality 20 years ago, when I lived for a time in Washington, D.C. I quickly learned that the city was overwhelmingly cynical, run by politicians and bureaucrats who felt perfectly free to squander millions and billions of dollars, unencumbered by any sense of obligation to the folk back home. Not only were they famously profligate with other people's money, they gave nothing in return. They were consistently and famously unresponsive to the general public: If you needed help, you were out of luck, unless you happened to be (or work for) a Big Shot.

The whole experience was summed up for me one day while riding the subway. The car was mostly empty until it stopped near the largest domestic government agency, what's now known as Health and Human Services around 5:00. A wave of people packed every seat, and from their age and dress as well as the location, it was obvious most were welfare-state employees on the way home from the office — people whose supposed profession was "caring" for "human needs."

At the next stop, a man on crutches got on; now here was a man with human needs. Yet I watched him make his way slowly, with difficulty, from the far end of the car, while not one of the healthy, well-dressed Caring Professionals got up to give him a seat. Finally he reached the back of the car, where I gave him mine. Though I didn't make a show of it, several people gave me dirty looks. It was as if such a minor act of decency had broken the unspoken social rule — Every Man for Himself — and held each of them up to shame. Only instead of hanging their heads guiltily, they were glaring resentfully.

This is what you get when government officially assumes the role of caregiver to the nation: You get not a more caring government, but a more callous "caregiver." To make matters worse, you get a more callous population. Among the evils of the welfare state is that it encourages people to think of caring for the needy as someone else's problem — to think "I pay my taxes, so I've done my part." The result is an attitude less like the Good Samaritan's than the Pharisee who imagines he's attained righteousness by living up to man-made rules.

Tags: , Education, Politics, News, Economy, Finances, TABOR, Economics, Policy,

Republican Party is Nothing Without Conservatives

Update: I thought this piece by Rush Limbaugh was relevant. I hope he is right. I do agree with him that the right move is towards the right, not more towards the center.
For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.
Great piece by Nathan Tabor, via the Conservative Voice:
The Republican National Committee would do well to study this history of the DNC because, as we know, history has a tendency to repeat itself. Sadly, the Republican Party leadership has begun to promote so-called moderates like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger under its newfound “Big Tent” philosophy. Now conservatives are faced with the same challenge that Southern Democrats faced in the 1970s. But, unlike Southern Democrats from a few decades ago, modern conservatives do not have a viable option in the other major party.

All “conservatives” have a choice. We could join forces with the Southern Democrats to form a new party; we could look to one of the existing third parties; or we can stand our ground and fight for that which we built. I believe we should fight for control of the party we built. The Republican Party cannot sustain itself on its “moderate wing.” The GOP needs conservatives to maintain its majorities and to win national office. Conservatives, not moderates, built the Republican Party.

The GOP can’t afford to forsake its conservative base by running to the middle. It’s time we let them know we are the party of faith, family and freedom. The time has come for us to let our voices be heard. First we must realize and accept the truth that the Republican Party is nothing without conservatives. Then we must demand that the party leadership respect this truth.
To this I would ad the whole big-spending mentality that seems to be overtaking the party of Lincoln. Why is it that our own Republican governor of CO is in support of more government spending, and what amounts to an increase in our taxes?

It makes no economic sense, and it's time the politicians started making sensible decisions that provide for viable and logical solutions for the welfare of the citizens--through small government. The big-spending, well-intentioned approach of our modern government must be stopped.

Squandered Resources: $8,000 per student in primary and secondary public schools

Here is a thought for supporters of C & D who insist we need more money for education. This comes via a Beyond The News email from Salem Radio Network. So, for pro-ref C & D people, don't talk to me about the need for more money to improve education!

I have been an educator in impoverished areas, and it does NOT take $8,000 to educate a child! Character, leadership, and respect for civic duty are values that are passed on, not bought with money. Intelligence, and a capacity and desire to learn are also values that are passed on by good parents, mentors and teachers--it is NOT something you can buy with hard cash.
--Michael Medved

American education faces serious problems, but a lack of spending isn't one of them. The Census Bureau shows we now spend more than $8,000 per student in primary and secondary public schools.

This means that even for a comfortably small class of 25 students, we invest the amazing sum of $200,000 a year. Allotting the teacher a handsome salary--say, $100,000 for the 10 months of the school year--that still leaves $100,000 for books, laptops, field trips, a janitor, overhead and so forth. With this kind of generous expenditure, we should hear no complaints about cash-starved schools, but far too much of that $200,000 never makes it to the class room--it's squandered on bureaucracy and political correctness.

Schools will only operate on a sane, business-like basis when educational choice forces them to compete with lower cost, more flexible educational alternatives.

Listen Now Podcast It