Norman Hsu spent "15 years on the lam from a felony theft conviction," according a story in the Denver Post, and yet he provided campaign funds to several prominent Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and Mark Udall. Moreover, he presumably is not an American citizen, as the San Mateo (California) Superior Court judge had demanded that he relinquish his passport in conjunction with $2 million bail. Even if accepting campaign contributions from a convicted criminal and non-citizen is legal, it certainly does not seem ethical. Would you trust a public servant who would accept funds from such a dubious source? Not me.
Barthas intimidated? Nonsense
Supporters of Jeff Crank's congressional primary run in Colorado Springs dealt another blow in the past week to the very honesty in campaigning they have been so vocal in calling for from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO5). Jonathan and Anna Bartha, long-time Republican activists who were publicly supported by Congressman Lamborn during Anna’s recent victorious run for the Falcon District School Board, join the lengthy list of public officials and Republican activists who have returned Mr. Lamborn’s friendship, support, and courageous defense of the principles they claim to hold dear with public slander and political betrayal.
The Barthas worked for Mr. Crank in the 2006 primary against Mr. Lamborn, appearing at local Republican meetings to announce themselves as committed social conservatives (which they are), and then without a word about Mr. Lamborn’s record on social issues that is unsurpassed by any conservative in Colorado over the last half-century, generically explained that they were supporting Mr. Crank.
The Barthas were not the first to do this to Mr. Lamborn, and whenever someone has explained their reasons for doing it, it is in the same fashion as is always used when a Republican insider decides to oppose the kind of principled Republican that comes along only a few times in a generation. Republicans across the state did this to Bob Schaffer in his 2004 U.S. Senate primary against Pete Coors.
To wit: Mr. Schaffer’s conservative record may be impeccable, but, um, er, uh, we’re supporting Mr. Coors because we think he will “be wonderfully effective, reach across the aisle to get things done, and work hard on behalf of Colorado values in the Senate.” There is never any substantial or specific reason for this kind of squeemishness, poor judgment, and just plain bad faith by self-proclaimed conservatives against a Republican hero.
This is a formula followed ad nauseam in Colorado Springs over the last two years by people who at one time had been personal friends, colleagues in the state legislature, and fellow evangelical Christians with Mr. Lamborn. Evangelicalism places a heavy emphasis on brotherhood and sisterhood with others in the faith. This charity between spiritual siblings was something commanded by Christ and is more than just good feelings. It is something that requires Christians to tell the truth about each other, to defend the good name of those who have been falsely impugned, and to make a private attempt at reconciliation before taking the matter public when a disagreement occurs.
(For the record, Christian charity does not require Christians who run for office to abstain from telling the truth – even unpleasant and unflattering truth – about the political record of opponents. On the contrary, public records are public matters for everyone. It does require, however, that presentation of that record be accurate.)
When Mr. Lamborn announced he was running for Congress two years ago, for many of these people personal friendship dropped by the wayside, close to a decade of shoulder-to-shoulder work in the state legislature became a publicly-announced reason not to support Mr. Lamborn – because he is “ineffective” or other such ill-defined nonsense – and brotherhood and sisterhood in the Christian faith, something Mr. Lamborn does not take lightly, was abused as a cover for baseless public insults against him.
In the present case, the Barthas, after telling the editor they are committed family-values conservatives, complained in a letter to a local newspaper about two donations Mr. Lamborn received from gambling interests. Mr. Lamborn has said he returned both donations, and one of those returns has been publicly confirmed by a spokeswoman for the relevant organization. The Barthas also complained about a vote Mr. Lamborn made against stiffening penalties for dog-fighting.
Stiffening penalties for dog-fighting has become an issue of social conservatism? Many conservatives, likely including Mr. Lamborn, think perhaps all the recent public indignation over dog-fighting in the wake of the Michael Vick affair is just a bit over-blown, given that 1.5 million unborn (human) children are being executed every year in the U.S. without any penalties at all.
The Barthas did not check with Mr. Lamborn before publishing their letter, and thus did not know he had returned the gambling donations or why he voted against stiffening penalties for dog-fighting. They thus were not able to present Mr. Lamborn’s record accurately. As many of Mr. Crank’s supporters have done, they were looking for any reason to publicly criticize Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Lamborn’s response was perfectly legitimate. He is a congressman with plenty more important things to do than deal with locally critical letters, which he sees all the time. In this case, however, Mr. Lamborn called the Barthas personally in an attempt to reconcile privately and preserve a friendship – just as Christ would have us do.
Local media have made it seem as though Mr. Lamborn threatened “consequences” in his calls, but this is ridiculous. He noted a simple truth that everyone knows: telling lies about people who have done nothing wrong carries consequences, and a recent public letter from El Paso County GOP Chairman, Greg Garcia, had said as much. Instead of responding to Mr. Lamborn like responsible adults, the Barthas first did not respond and then, after Mr. Lamborn issued a public letter to Mr. Garcia asking that the matter be addressed, contacted the Denver Post to make public Mr. Lamborn’s private messages and claim Mr. Lamborn scared them. Mr. Lamborn then followed with a charitable note to the Barthas apologizing if anything in his messages had been misunderstood, but he need not have done this, as he was the one who had been misunderstood and misrepresented.
All this confusion shows the wisdom of Christ’s admonitions. Find out the truth about your brother before you publicly criticize him, and when he gets upset at your ill-founded words and attempts to reconcile privately with you, return his phone call, apologize for not coming to him first before making public claims about him, and take steps to make the offense right.
Since this sequence of events is not now likely to occur, the truth about the matter is likely to get buried as more time passes, and everyone will sigh and wonder why Republicans, especially ones claiming to be Christians, are always fighting. Many will use the episode as another reason to criticize Mr. Lamborn. What a wonderful political world this would be if, instead, we would decide to be people who love and support heroes like Doug Lamborn and pray for the day when both political parties, Congress, and the courts are again full of people who share his courage and wisdom.
Environmental follies in France
"To arms, oh citizens! Form up in serried ranks! March on, march on! May their impure blood / Flow in our fields!" When it was first heard in 1792, the chorus of La Marseillaise, France’s national anthem, left no doubt whatsoever about the determination of French revolutionary troops to win the war their national assembly had just declared on the King of Austria purportedly in the name of freedom. The same kind of Jacobin take-no-prisoners approach has been favored by latter-day French authorities in their latest revolutionary expedition against environmental damage. Too bad if Baby Freedom is being thrown out with the bloody bath water.
The war on environmental recklessness started back in February 2005 when then President Jacques Chirac, otherwise known as a peace-loving world leader, convened all 907 French deputes et senateurs in a special parliamentary session which was held, of all places, in regal Versailles and in which a so-called Charter for the Environment was ratified almost unanimously as an amendment to the French Constitution. Representative government can undoubtedly work wonders when a majority might produce a different outcome at the ballot box in a referendum.
Anyway the charter duly strikes a balance between the singular right of French citizens “to live in a healthy environment” (Article 1) and their plural duties to protect the earth (Articles 2, 3, and 4). Just as importantly, the document democratically goes on to point out in Article 8 that “education and training will have to contribute to the fulfillment of the rights and duties described in the Charter”. Mercifully no mention is made of reeducation camps for recalcitrant green fellow travelers -- but those in France who still believed that representative government and propaganda did not mix have now been warned to think again.
Whether these skeptics like it or not, even French meteorologists will patriotically make sure they put on their green thinking cap by “educating” and “training” viewers, at the end of their televised forecasts, about the various potential environmental dangers of turning on the heat when it’s cold or the air-conditioning when it’s too hot, of performing prolonged ablutions and cooking gargantuan meals. (Now you know why the French are so slim!) For good measure, the democratically naïve will afterwards be treated to three or four segments in the nightly news on environmentally-friendly anchors for fishing vessels, writing materials for school children, and preposterous whatnot.
Of course, French environmental education would not be complete without fiscal illustration. Since November 2006, the French have had to pay a new euphemistically called “eco-participation” (read, “eco-tax”) to help with the costs of recycling electrical and electronic waste.
Finally, early this week, even President Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac’s successor, “trained” his fellow countrymen by lambasting his new American friends with words to the effect that while the U.S. once (can anyone remember when?) couldn’t resist the temptation to use force unilaterally, it now “unfortunately” does not show the same kind of unilateral commitment in the war on global warming.
There is one little inconvenient truth in all this, though. French authorities have actually been too doctrinally successful in their green revolutionary drive. Indeed, this has been one of the coolest and wettest summers in France in almost half a century, and French citizens have apparently been voting with their feet lately: record numbers of them traveled abroad in July and August. The most popular destinations? Sun-drenched resorts.
Time to close the borders?
Note: "Paoli" is the pen name, or should we say nom de plume, of our French correspondent, a close student of European politics and a well-wisher to us Americans. He informs us the original Pasquale Paoli, 1725-1807, was the George Washington of Corsica.
For better schools, don't overspend, overcome
Since I don't see many first-run movies today, because of the high prices and low quality, here's an older cinematic analogy to illustrate how Democrats and Republicans differ on the approach to government. Today's script comes from House Speaker Andrew Romanoff's state-wide education grandstanding tour. There's a 1992 movie with Daman Wayans titled Mo' Money. That seems to be the Democrats' answer for everything. Recent examples include Amendment 23 and Referendum C. Remember how Bill Owens, Bruce Benson, the Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News and almost all state Democrats promised us this would be the answer to Coloradoans' dreams? We'd see fully-funded schools, freshly-paved roads and highways, and they wouldn't be asking for another tax increase again.
But - surprise, surprise - in today's Rocky Mountain News, we're told to look for the premiere of "Amendment 23: The Sequel." That's because Romanoff sees these (gasp!) schools with bad sewer systems, unacceptable gym equipment, and golly-gee whillikers, that's not good enough for Colorado kids. And what would that mean for state government if this big-government pipe dream comes true? Mo' Money, Mo' Money, and Mo' Money in state coffers - and out of taxpayers' pockets.
It's painful to be right at times, and I was in my 2005 post about Democrats' almost insatiable appetite for taxing and spending. Romanoff also opines in this article: "Coloradans haven't been dared to dream about what their schools could be... There's a real appetite for this conversation."
Note to the Speaker: There already has been some dreaming (and doing) with educational alternatives in Colorado. Some parents have chosen to home-school their kids, and others have opted to send their kids to charter schools - where some have waiting lists in the hundreds, and sometimes thousands for kids to get accepted. Not to mention the push for educational vouchers, so parents (and not some state bureaucracy) could decide where their children would be educated.
But that doesn't set well with the Democrats biggest supporters, the CEA and teachers' unions. Remember what Rep. Mike Merrifield said about people who supported choice in education? "There must be a special place in hell for these Privatizers, Charterizers and Voucherizers. They deserve it!" Since Dems can't offend their biggest source of campaign contributions, they obey the CEA's marching orders.
Let me think about this: Liberal Democrats defend to the hilt a 'woman's right to choose' an abortion (also known as killing an unborn human being), but parents of living children don't have the right to choose where, how and by whom their kids are educated? Another example of liberal logic - the ultimate oxymoron.
Contrast the Democratic "Mo' Money" approach to the Clint Eastwood movie, Heartbreak Ridge. Eastwood plays Marine Sergeant Gunny Highway, whose three words about overcoming adversity best reflect my (and most conservative Republicans') approach to improving education: Adapt, Improvise, Overcome. Alternative schools such as Hope Online Learning Academy are using the Gunny's approach, giving disadvantaged kids an alternative to the failure of public schools.
But that doesn't tow the Dems' company line on education, so they have the Rocky Mountain News criticize Hope Academy . Publish a story about a non-public school succeeding? That's not in the big-government, big-education playbook, so they can't allow that to happen.
However, support is rapidly gaining for charter and online school alternatives. A recent Gallup poll showed 60 percent of adults polled favored charter school alternatives, and 40 percent approved of online choices. That's up from 42 and 30 percent respectively in a similar poll back in 2000.
Americans are increasingly fed up with the Mo' Money approach to government and education. Private-sector, free-market alternatives that adapt and improvise are (and always have been) the best ways to overcome challenges and promote positive change in America.
Welcome to Taxorado...
... empty your pockets here. Last week it was Rep. Michael Garcia (D-Aurora) wanting to boost the sales tax a third of a billion dollars annually for the benefit of 8,000 developmentally disabled people. The week before, it was a tax and spend trifecta: tripping over each other in the Denver Post metro section on a single day were (1) half a billion in proposed higher RTD spending for one rail corridor alone...
then (2) a billion or more in new taxes for highways from one of Gov. Ritter's study groups (or if you prefer, and liberals probably do, another 1/3 billion in sneaky road "fees" not requiring voter approval)...
and then (3) up to $26 billion from another panel of Ritter dreamers for Canada-style socialized medicine, covering every resident at a cool 150% of the state's total current budget.
Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany (R-Colorado Springs), in a letter published Aug. 30, calls the latter "a fool's bargain" that would require a more-than-doubling of our income tax rate, from under 5% now to nearly 11% if the Dem dreamers get their way.
Also looming out there are the Ritter property tax increase for schools -- on the lawbooks but facing a TABOR suit -- and the Hank Brown plea for some kind of dedicated tax to support CU and other higher-ed institutions.
Mark Hillman, the former state senator and acting treasurer, offers context for all this revenue lust in his new study for the Independence Institute, documenting how K-12, higher ed, and health care missed out on much of the spending boost that voters were promised under Referendum C. The obvious lesson is that 2005's bait-and-switch could easily be the model for similar fiscal shuffles in the future. Caveat taxpayer.
You tend to think -- or at least I do, as a conservative Republican -- that the Taxorado frenzy can only be a liability to Dollar Bill Ritter and the Democrats. But then you remember Mayor John Hickenlooper and his 80-plus percent reelection this spring after a dozen tax increases in four years.
You remember former Gov. Bill Owens and his Dem-GOP coalition that passed Ref C, sending Owens off to private life last January with approval ratings above 60%. You think of a Republican legislator friend of mine who comments that in the Denver suburbs it's now "cool" among some Republicans and quite a few unaffiliated folks to vote for Democrats and higher taxes.
Maybe it's just another form of conspicuous consumption that makes affluent people feel good about themselves, not so different from the Volvo wagon, plasma TV and the daily latte. Not so different from buying carbon credits and paying more for green power.
I for one don't want to live in a State of Taxorado. Ever-larger government taking an ever-larger bite of what people earn is unhealthy for a free and virtuous people. It erodes liberty, responsibility, civic virtue, and the institutions of civil society. In a word, it's bad for backbone. But my preferences aren't everyone's. We'll see soon enough, from coming elections, what everyone's are.
[Cross-posted on PoliticsWest.com]