Talk radio stars headed here

Conservative radio hosts Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, and Hugh Hewitt, my colleagues on 710 KNUS, will speak at a voter turnout rally next Monday, Oct. 27, at the Marriott DTC Hotel, I-25 & Belleview, starting at 7pm. It's free and open to the public. I'll be there, hope you will too. It's the first stop of a five-state fly-in for the righty talkers trio during the final week of election 2008, sponsored by Salem Communications, their syndication company. From Denver, Medved, Prager, and Hewitt will barnstorm at additional battleground stops in Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Townhall.com, Salem's political site where all three also write columns, has more details about the Oct. 27 rally and the whole tour, linked here.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that here in Colorado they'll draw a sharp contrast between McCain and Obama, and between Schaffer and Udall, maybe just slightly leaning toward the Republican in each case.

And the tour will probably draw extra motivation from the on-air admission by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) this week that Dems will reinstate the (Un) Fairness Doctrine next year if they can, effectively muzzling conservative talk radio.

Memo to BHO: Enemies aren't 'just like us'

For months I've tried to show why Obama is unfit to be president. I have recently focused on his "spread the wealth" socialist economic plan, his years in church listening to a hate-spewing pastor and his time at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with William Ayers -- but my first and biggest concern with Obama has always been in the area of foreign policy. Barack Obama's foreign policy is typical among the left's "internationalist" wing -- those who see themselves as "citizens of the world", and who come to look at international cooperation as not simply a means but an end in itself. Obama has worked during the campaign to sharpen his edge and give the voters a sense that he will not hesitate to use force to protect America -- something any candidate in this day and age must say. But his inclinations are toward multilateralism, and he has said clearly that as president one of his first orders of business will be to bring "humility" to U.S. foreign policy -- principally by listening to the ideas and needs of other nations. My sense is that Barack Obama will return the U.S. to a "U.N./EU first" kind of foreign policy, where we are careful not to offend while trying to protect our interests both here and home and abroad. It won't work.

My concerns about Obama and foreign policy have been heightened (if that is possible) over the past few days by two events.

First, I was extremely troubled reading an interview given to the New Yorker's Nicholas Lehman by senior Obama military adviser Maj. Gen. Scott Gration (Ret.). This interview reinforces Obama's internationalism, but it does so in a very dangerous way:

"Gration was impatient with the idea that conflict is the natural state of the world, to be managed rather than resolved. “People are more alike than their cultures and religions,” he said. “When Obama talks about global citizens, it’s the same framework. You see, religion and culture - they’re the way people communicate their values. They want stability, order, education. This is just humanness. Then you add on your religion, your culture - that’s how you execute it.” His implication was that if we can get past the religious and cultural identities that serve as host organisms for conflict, and deal with people at the level of their humanity and their basic needs, then we can make real progress - especially if Obama personally holds an office that permits him to set the tone and lead the effort (emphasis added)."

The "level of their humanity"? What humanity is that? You mean the humanity that beheads prisoners and blows up buildings?  Or straps explosives on the bodies of children in martyrdom operations?   Oh, but of course, this is another extension of "the One" using his cult of personality to sit down with radical jihadists and find a "common ground".  This is udoubtedly one of the more dangerous statements I have heard since 9/11.  It is also typical of the left which does not wish to admit that radical Islam exists and is fundamentally an extension of the teaching of Islam itself. 

Of course, we shouldn't be surprised by this, for it is prototypical idealism at work -- the notion that people's values are essentially the same, and that it is some external factor (poverty, oppression, imperialism) that makes people violent. Forget the fact that the perpetrators of 9/11 and the suicide bombers in London on 7/7/2005 were all educated, middle class Muslims who were indoctrinated with hatred. They were not poor or oppressed. They were, however, evil. This is something that the Obama team apparently can't get their minds around.

We should all be very afraid of this.

Second is the statement that Joe Biden made yesterday in Seattle before a liberal audience that he expects that in the first six months of an Obama administration, the U.S. will be attacked. He fears that our enemies will test the young president, much like the Soviets did Kennedy in 1961-1962. Here's what Biden said (courtesy of the The Weekly Standard):

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking.... Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy....

I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate… And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right."

This is troubling on several levels. It seems to be an acknowledgement that Obama represents a weak, inexperienced leader who invites an attack -- and that from what Biden is saying that Obama is going to flub the response -- at least initially -- and will need support and understanding. This is not confidence inspiring coming from the #2 spot on the Democratic ticket.

But it is not the 1960s anymore -- and while the stakes during the Berlin blockade and the Cuban missile crisis could hardly have been higher, our enemy was operating within the same rationality model that we were. It is clear that Khruschev and the Soviets backed down from Cuba because they understood that they could not survive a nuclear confrontation with the U.S. In other words, rationality prevailed. We don't have such a luxury today -- when we face an enemy who seeks suicidal martyrdom in their evil deeds. There is no rational basis (at least Western-style) where deterrence works with Islamic jihadists.

So if we are attacked, the devastation could be enormous -- and our response will be less far less important than the initial attack against us.  

Can we really afford this kind of on-the-job-training in the era of suicide bombing?

Why I'm for Schaffer

I’m voting for Bob Schaffer. Truth be told if I had to choose between Schaffer for Senate and McCain for President, I’d choose Bob. Knowing that an Obama presidency will increase government dependence, vastly increase the federal debt, empower kook fringe groups, deepen the economic recession, weaken our national defense, and seat far-left Supreme Court justices whose opinions will damage the country for decades, I’d still take Bob in the Senate, if I had to choose but one. Don’t get me wrong, I voted McCain on my mail-in ballot, put a McCain/Palin sticker on my car, and stuck a sign in my yard. McCain will be a decent president. Bob, however, will be an exceptional senator. He is the leader America needs. I have known Bob for over a decade. My first job on Capitol Hill was sorting mail in his office. As I moved up through the office ranks, I got to know the man. Bob is incredibly bright. I never had to write a speech; Bob could speak extemporaneously about any issue with clarity and thoughtfulness. He worked late and actually read legislation before voting it. Exclusive parties and elite dinners held no interest to him; when not working he wanted to be with his family. In stark contrast to other elected leaders in Washington, Bob is egalitarian through and through. From the head of NASA to the 16-year-old page, Bob treated everyone in the same unpretentious manner.

All of these good qualities earned my respect and friendship, but Bob’s devotion to principle is what earned my loyalty and my vote. Unlike liberal Democrats like Mark Udall and even big-government Republicans, Bob understands the purpose of government. The purpose of government is to protect each American’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, otherwise known as the freedom to do what you want with what you have so long as it does not take from others’ rights. Bob knows that in order for government to give something to someone (whether a welfare check, subsidized loan, or business subsidy), it must take from the hard work of others in the form of taxes or the hard work of future generations in the form of federal debt. Bob knows that using the power of government for social engineering is an abuse of that power.

Barack Obama, Mark Udall, and other liberal Democrats and to a lesser extent big-government Republicans see government as a tool to advance various agendas, for example, turn people into homeowners (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac), lift people from poverty (Great Society welfare programs), or make kids smarter (No Child Left Behind). They promise new programs and tickle the heart of envy; “we will take from those who have and give it to you.” For their efforts we have foreclosed homes, economic turmoil, drug-ridden public housing, bureaucratized education and medicine, and generations dependent on government benefits. In taking from the responsible homeowner, the hard worker, the person who saves their money, and the successful business, to give to the delinquent homeowner, the unemployed, the bankrupt, and the insolvent enterprise, politicians have diminished the freedom and free will of both parties. Despite the miserable consequences of their actions, today’s politicians call for even more of the same.

American needs a new kind of leader. Someone who will stand up for the forgotten man and woman in this election: the person who does not want what others have, the person who wants only to keep what she has earned. We need someone who understands that government is supposed to protect our lives, our liberty and our property, not take them away. I am that forgotten American and Bob Schaffer is the one who represents me.

Disgustingly cheerful, still

Time for another few thoughts of glee. It has been a beautiful morning. I want to sing along with the cast of Oklahoma! My permasmile turned on full blast, I will never turn it off. (Unless the batteries run out) 1. McCain proceeds unto his doom, doom. Two more weeks of impending doom.

2. Likewise the GOP. It now abides in rigor mortis while preparing for actual decomposition.

3. What shall it fertilize?

4. McCain's loss must not be blamed on Palin. Keep an eye out for those who will attempt such.

5. Does anyone now know what "Conservatism" means? Well... How'd things slip away? Perhaps Neoconservatism has proved fatal to Conservatism.

6. Christopher Buckley has just been purged from National Review. Thus enhancing NR's irrelevance.

7. Not that Christopher didn't deserve it, after endorsing Obama and all.

8. Buckley Junior recently wrote: "Eight years of 'conservative' government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance."

9. Ouch. WFB couldn't have said it better himself. And he surely would have tried.

10. Interesting question: If WFB had supported Buchanan in 92 and 96, where would the conservative movement be today? And the nation?

11. Colin Powell endorses Obama at a key juncture. Why? Powell will forever seethe over his February 2003 UN speech which started the Iraq War. A bold betrayal written for him by key Neocons: Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, John Hannah, William Luti. Powell had deep misgivings beforehand, but ultimately decided to "trust" and do his "duty." Turned out the whole heap of "evidence" was false. Whoops on all counts.

12. As for the markets... There are no guides for the road ahead. No signs, no taillights. Maybe even no pavement. Hence Norman's permasmile!

Well chaps, so much for today's inspiration. Remember, the thoughts make the man -- Let us keep on the sunny side!

Respectfully Yours, Norman Vincent Peale

==================================

But Dave Crater begs to differ...

Norman, Norman. Sigh. Your basic instincts have always been good, but you continue to disappoint in some aspects of your conscious judgment. When you are slightly to the left of Colin Powell on national security, perhaps second thoughts are in order. And when glee is your reaction at the demise of the world's strongest conservative party, perhaps third and fourth thoughts are in order.

4. Agreed. Many will dish blame everywhere but where it belongs, including Palin and other Christian social conservatives. One can hear it now: "the GOP needs to abandon these social cavemen that are holding it back and focus on issues that Americans really care about" blah blah blah.

5. Perhaps the failure to observe and follow conservatism, particularly by "conservative" intellectuals like Peale or Christopher Buckley, and by actual policy makers like GWB and John McCain, has been fatal to conservatism.

6-9. Quoting as authority on conservatism someone who has endorsed Obama -as I say, poor judgment, Amigo.

Reach him at crater@wilberforcecenter.org

Initiatives do taxpayers few favors

Contrary to popular belief, the citizen initiative process is not inherently - or even incidentally - conservative. Like government, the initiative is merely a reflection of the attitudes and principles of the people. Today, the people are not conservative - skeptical, irascible or cynical, perhaps, but not conservative. This year's ballot issues in Colorado remind one of Frederic Bastiat's warning: "Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else."

Long ago when the populace did not expect much from government, government's ineptitude caused fewer problems. Now, as more people expect government to do more, government's "doing" constantly causes newer, bigger problems to replace the older, smaller ones it set out to solve.

One day, people will surely recognize that, as P.J. O'Rourke says, "giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

Then, perhaps, they will finally rise up and say to their elected officials - of both parties: "I accept that we will always have problems and inequality, with or without government, but because you take my hard-earned money and squander it on bridges to nowhere and feckless financial bailouts, I prefer to keep my paycheck and cut yours."

Today, voters are more likely to use the initiative process to constrain and burden each other than to limit government.

In Colorado, the last initiative that clearly protected the rights of the people and constrained government was the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, passed in 1992. Like it or not, TABOR undeniably shifted power to the people by giving them a right to vote on tax increases and away from government by constraining its ability to spend.

In the 16 years since, most enacted initiatives have made government bigger, increased the burden on taxpayers, and reduced the freedoms of the people.

Two initiatives on this year's ballot, Amendments 51 and 58, would increase state government spending by more than $500 million a year and lock in existing government spending on another $500 million.

Amendment 51 would increase the state sales tax to provide a new guaranteed entitlement at taxpayer expense for the developmentally disabled. Moreover, it would require that state government spend these new funds, plus all money currently budgeted for the developmentally disabled, on these programs and nothing else in the future.

A few years back we were told that state government's budget crisis was the product of conflicting inflexible spending mandates. Apparently, advocates of Amendment 51 weren't paying attention, because this is another inflexible spending mandate.

Perhaps more should be spent on programs for the developmentally disabled. If so, it should be up to the legislature to prioritize and reduce spending on less worthwhile programs.

Next, there's Amendment 58 which would increase energy taxes by $321 million a year to pay, mostly, for Gov. Ritter's new college scholarship program. While this tax will be collected by oil and gas companies, anyone who understands Economics 101 knows that corporations have no choice but to pass along new taxes to consumers.

Finally, there's Referendum O which offers a glimmer of hope for fewer such shenanigans in the future. Colorado's constitution looks more like a phone book than a simple statement of principle. Ref O increases the amount of signatures needed for a constitutional amendment and requires those signatures to come from all seven congressional districts.

To encourage amendments to statutes instead, Ref O would allow more time to collect signatures and prohibit the legislature from amending citizen initiatives for five years, except with a two-thirds vote.

Though the initiative process provides a necessary check on recalcitrant government, it is all too susceptible to those who simply want more from government but want someone else to pay for it.

Editor's Note: Referendum O is something on which reasonable people can differ. Our voter guide on this site recommends a no vote, contrary to Sen. Hillman's recommendation above. My comments on Head On TV in opposition to Ref O are here.