Mount Virtus

Demonstrating quite a bit of ironic ignorance, the diarist “Go Blue” and commenters at the Dead Governors site latch onto an unsubstantiated attack against former state senator and state treasurer Mark Hillman, using hollow ammunition provided by the Lefties at the Bell Policy Center.

As explained yesterday, Hillman co-wrote a report for the Independence Institute on the difference between the promises made in the Referendum C campaign and the promises delivered in state spending. The Bell then released a quick press release ignoring the substance of the report and decrying the analysis as “simplistic,” as well as a preliminary research summary that projects FUTURE revenue and spending.

Yet pushing along the herd of lemmings, the diarist “Go Blue” ignores the fact that NOTHING in the Bell analysis refutes what Hillman wrote (they’re talking about two different things) and recycles the Bell’s rhetoric. In a feat of great irony, the diarist then attacks Hillman for his apparent ignorance (because he read a Bell press release, after all, guys … c’mon!):

We are all aware that many opportunistic politicians will push aside their social norms, moral values, and to even some exint their political beliefs for political gain. But has anyone ever heard of a politician neglecting basic math skills, especially one that was the State Treasurer, to continue wagging their finger in a debate already lost? This is worse than hard headed. It’s a slap in the face to voters.

The more I see Colorado Lefties unwilling to have a serious discussion and dialogue about these fiscal issues - forget the facts, they have high moral certitude on their side - the more confident I am they are on the wrong side of the issue.

Hillman’s report used a “simple” analysis of the state budget (he understands it a lot better than you do, Dead Guvs diarist, and had to write about it in a way you might be able to understand) to demonstrate where promised Ref C dollars have actually gone. It’s only “simplistic” if you think it doesn’t matter that politicians and interest groups spent millions of dollars misleading Coloradans in 2005 concerning the use of their increased tax revenues. Because that’s all the brief report said.

Word of caution to the Left: it can be dangerous and foolish to impose your preconceptions on a piece of writing you apparently haven’t even bothered to look at. Go do your homework first.

Just wanted to give a little shout out to Jessica Corry, a good friend of Mount Virtus, who has started as one of the featured diarists at the Denver Post’s new Politics West site. In fact, I just came across this excellent piece she wrote on behalf of my “endangered” species. I know we need a lot of help, but … “Save the Males”? Seriously, she makes a very important point, often overlooked because of its political incorrectness. Check it out.

The Independence Institute (where I work) published a study this week titled “State Budget Scrutiny Reveals Ref C Shuffle,” detailing how the promises made in Colorado’s 2005 tax increase campaign have gone unmet. Lawmakers have increased spending far more in budget areas not connected with the promises of the Referendum C campaign than in the key areas used to sell the tax increase to Colorado voters (i.e., public schools, state universities, and health care). The report is well documented with actual data.

Yesterday, the tax increase apologists at the Bell Policy Center issued a quick response that did not dispute the substance of the findings but asserts that the Institute report uses a “simplistic analysis” and criticizes it for “offering no meaningful solutions.”

Readers can decide for themselves how “simplistic” the analysis is. They can also look elsewhere to find that the Institute has offered solutions before. Bell just chooses to ignore them, because the solutions don’t include increasing the tax burden and the size of government. But for now, it looks like Bell has conceded the point that they and their friends hoodwinked voters into supporting Referendum C with misleading explanations of how the additional revenue would be used. Why should we trust you again?

Lesson learned: When the big government crowd comes knocking on your door saying the state needs another tax increase, see yourself what they did with the last hit on your wallet. And run away! “Fool me twice, shame on me.”

An irrelevant left wing “watchdog” group named Media Matters has reprinted the comments of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer on Greeley’s Amy Oliver Show. The key excerpt of Schaffer’s comments highlighted by Media Matters goes as follows:

“I think it’s foolish to behave the way you see people like Harry Reid and other, others who are leading the Senate right now, that I think are trying to, at the end, the analysis of their achievement and what they are effectively accomplishing is a deliberate loss and a surrender in Iraq for the sake of their political advantage at election time in 2008. I think they’re hoping America loses.”

The comments were reported and repeated uncritically, which can only lead an open-minded observer to believe that the comments are accepted as true and reliable. On this major point of foreign policy, it’s good to see Media Matters at least be frank and honest about its preferred political party’s leadership in Congress.

There’s no need to rehearse the long train of public statements and political behavior of Democrat Congressional leaders that indicates an unwillingness to achieve victory in Iraq. Media Matters must have finally started Googling its way around the Net and come to the same obvious conclusion that so many others have found for themselves: The Democratic Party is married to defeat. I’m glad to see we at least have the beginnings of a bipartisan recognition now - even if it originates from an irrelevant group.

The fact that Gov. Bill Ritter and his Democrat cohort wants to impose mandatory collective bargaining on Colorado state employees has been the Capitol’s worst-kept secret for 2006. Today, the Rocky Mountain News quotes a leading Democrat legislator as confirming the rumors:

Senate President Joan Fitz- Gerald, D-Coal Creek Canyon, confirmed she has heard Ritter’s office may be working on a state government reform package that could include collective bargaining for state employees. And she spoke positively of the possibility.

“Under the Owens years, the state employees did not fare well and they lost a lot of their benefits,” she said.

Ritter declined to talk specifics on a possible initiative.

“We’re working on how to best partner with state employees to deliver services faster, smarter and more effectively,” said his spokesman, Evan Dreyer.

You have to love how Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouth. Support mandatory collective bargaining on one hand, but give lip service to more efficient government on the other. Sorry, boys - you can’t have it both ways.

When it comes to public-sector union law, the devil is in the details. Here are some questions Coloradans will want to ask their governor and legislature about this matter of anyone concerned about the cost and effectiveness of state government:

1. Will your proposal give individual state employees the choice of who represents them?

2. Will state employees have equal opportunity to opt in and to opt out of a union or employee association?

3. Will state government give monopoly bargaining status to one private organization over all others?

4. Will negotiations between state government and a labor union be subject to costly binding arbitration?

5. Will the state be allowed to pay its employees under a merit system?

6. Will any legally-binding negotiations between public officials and private union officials over the use of public tax dollars be open to public attendance, or at least public review of official proceedings?

7. How do state employee salaries, benefits, and pensions compare to similar jobs in the private sector?

These are just a few of the questions that should be of interest to both taxpayers and state employees, questions we should have answered clearly and honestly before such a major change in Colorado state policy is enacted.

We don’t need more oversimplified and distorted rhetoric from Democrat leaders. We need to know the facts first - how this will affect the rights of employees, how this will affect the state budget. What are union leaders telling Democrat lawmakers behind closed doors?

Before Ritter and the Democrats foist their campaign promises to labor organizations on the state of Colorado, their proposal should be open to the greatest scrutiny. Because I agree with Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany: it sure sounds like a “budget-buster.”

In a story reminiscent of the Danish Mohammed cartoon protests, numerous American newspapers (at least 25, according to reports collected by Michelle Malkin) have refused to print this week’s edition of “Opus” because it’s potentially offensive to Muslims:

[Writers Group comics editor Amy] Lago said she flagged some of the syndicate’s newspaper clients for two reasons: because of the possibility that the jokes about Islam would be misconstrued and because of the sexual innuendo in the punchline.

“The strip came in and I knew we would have to send out an alert to all the newspapers,” Lago said. “I do that fairly regularly with materials that might pose issues for local areas. … We knew that because it was a sex joke, it could raise issues.

And there is another client that has issues with any Muslim depiction whatsoever.

A remarkable piece of self-censorship, especially when you consider the “Opus” cartoon that appeared exactly one week before:

The Aug. 19 “Opus” ended with a joke about the late Jerry Falwell. In that strip, Lola, fresh from a quest to become an Amish nudist, is doing yoga and talking to the penguin character Opus about who goes to heaven.

“Liberals? Evolutionists? Feminists? ACLU lawyers?” Opus asks incredulously. “Yep,” replies Lola.

“Kennedy Democrats? French people? Manly women who don’t shave … they’re all up there?” Opus wonders. “Yep,” Lola repeats.

“With Jerry Falwell?” asks Opus. “Yep,” Lola says again.

Opus looks up in an aha! sort of moment. “Goodness, must HE be annoyed!” the penguin exclaims.

“Eternally,” Lola replies.

Here’s the key section of the story:

Lago said she didn’t flag newspapers about that strip because she didn’t think readers would misunderstand the humor.“They’re not going to take it seriously,” she said.

But she did alert newspapers about the Muslim-themed cartoon because there was a question about whether Muslim readers would be offended.

Huh? There are a lot of things you could read into this double standard. Does she think Muslims are less intelligent and sophisticated? Does she think conservative Christians have a higher tolerance level? Or most likely, there is fear of potential violent repercussions from one group but not the other. This episode will make great fodder for the sequel to Mark Steyn’s America Alone.

For the record, I am opposed to government-imposed censorship - and in this case the need for censorship at all. (Tastelessness alone is not sufficient grounds for removal. As for “Opus,” I lost interest in its content & flavor years ago.) But such “dhimm” judgment and pathetic rationalization only helps to clarify why MSM newspapers are in demise. I just hope the application can’t be extended to all of Western Civilization.

Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters tackles the MSM’s eerie silence over a major development of political progress in Iraq:

Let’s say we’re at war, and we’re waiting for some specific action to take place to show us that our efforts are succeeding. Add in that the war itself would be rather controversial and that our political class is split as to whether we will ever see that specific action take place. Imagine that Congress and the White House have scheduled a showdown in the next couple of weeks to determine how much longer we will wait for that development.

Now imagine that the specific action for which we’ve waited actually occurs. Where would you think that story appear in Washington’s biggest newspaper?

Read the whole piece at CQ: It’s truly breathtaking. In the past couple weeks, many Democrats in Congress grudgingly admitted that General Petraeus’ surge strategy was yielding military progress, but that the political situation was disastrous. Few have stopped to reason that the dynamic of central government in Iraq is a lagging indicator. Now the Iraq unity government is meeting some of their precious benchmarks: will they be able to ignore it for long? How will the liberal spin machine downplay this development?

We await responses from the offices of Sens. Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and John Warner, among others.

Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall wants Colorado to choose him as our next U.S. Senator, but he is treading a fine line of confusion on the most important issue of our times. From the Aspen Times comes this gem:

Thursday, Udall’s plans were momentarily derailed when protester George Newell positioned himself behind the congressman, directly in line with cameras of local photographers. Newell carried a sign saying, “Dump Udall. He Votes For War” - a reference to Udall’s recent vote for passage of a $100 billion war bill sought by President Bush.

When one of Udall’s staff tried to get Newell to step away, the protester reacted angrily, saying, “That’s assault.”

When Udall joined in with a politely-phrased request to get out of the way, Newell responded, “That guy just tried to shove me out of the way.” Newell and Udall then exchanged words about Udall’s recent vote on the war funding bill.

“This guy just voted $100 billion for the war,” Newell said, to which Udall responded that he also had recently voted “to protect civil liberties, which I have always supported.” Udall said it was his position to “support the warriors, not the war,” and told Newell, “You and I both agree the war ought to end.”

Again asking Newell to disengage, and getting another anti-war argument in return, Udall continued, “You end the war by tying the funding to a different direction, which I have voted consistently to do.”

Ouch. It looks like walking a fine indecisive line only opens the rift in his party’s base a little more.

And as a watcher pointed out about the broader cynical political posturing of Udall and the Democrats:

All enemies of the US have learned that if the cost in American lives can be made high enough, the US will cut and run. The political goal of the enemy immediately before the election will be to make the war as bloody as possible in order to try to elect people like Udall. That’s not a criticism of Udall, but a fact of life.

If he really wants to protect soldiers, he needs to speak out against this macabre strategy.
He should say publicly and often that he doesn’t want his party to benefit from a pre-election period made more bloody by an enemy determined to impact the outcome.

Democrats have cakewalked to power when the enemy uses those tactics and encouraged them through their silence. They are willingly walking to political power on the coffins of our young men and women. It needs to stop.

It’s worth repeating because his analysis is spot on true.

Cross posted at Schaffer v Udall

Democrat Governor Bill Ritter’s blue ribbon commission to reform health care has come up with an idea that would blow a mile-wide hole in the state budget, reports the Colorado Springs Gazette. But who is going to foot the bill for the proposed bureaucratic nightmare? Colorado Republicans, conservative and moderate independents, and even plenty of Democrats know this plan isn’t going to fly.

After all, it’s only one of five plans the commission is floating. Once we all waste our ammunition shooting down the big, bad, scary plan, the Democrats will try to sneak through one of the less offensive (but still $1-3 billion a year costly) alternatives. Mark my words.

Check out Lin Zinser’s take at We Stand Firm for more details.

With stories yesterday and today, Face The State brings out the 1-2 punch, exposing the bonus Democrats get from groups that exploit Colorado’s campaign law, and then highlighting an effort by some local governments to clean up the act. From yesterday:

During the last election, the nation’s largest unions utilized a loophole in Colorado’s campaign finance laws that allowed them to give millions of dollars in anonymous political contributions to Democrat candidates—all while never revealing the name of a single individual donor.

For the Service Employees International Union, the nation’s largest union with more than 1.6 million members, this setup allowed its leadership to transfer portions of membership dues to small donor committees without member knowledge or consent, and without donor names ever being publicly disclosed. According to the SEIU, it’s Colorado membership stands at about 5,000 workers but with the aid of national member dues, it was able to pump nearly $1 million into the campaign coffers of union-supporting candidates. That comes out to almost $200 per Colorado member.

So much for clean elections. At least a few local governments are trying to make a dent in stopping the problem. As Face The State reports today, several Colorado counties don’t want their public payroll systems to be used facilitating these political transactions:

This summer, four counties have enacted policy changes that limit withholdings from paychecks to include only employee benefits, court-ordered garnishments, and annually authorized charitable contributions. The net effect: Unions will not be able to use government payroll systems to deduct member dues.

Under the new system, employees in all four counties can still arrange through banks or other private financial services to make automatic dues payments. Proponents argue that it protects the privacy of employee earnings, while also keeping government out of the business of raising political money.

The state’s majority Democrat Party owes a lot to the special interest groups funneling anonymous contributions into their campaigns. Read both these articles to learn more.

Via the Denver Post today, another example of Colorado’s liberal/Lefty activist blogger community with not enough to occupy their time and interest this slow news August: “Schaffer’s ‘if’ stirs a ruckus.” The only people who have stirred a ruckus are the usual suspects. Here is a voice of reason quoted in the Post story, basically saying “What’s the big deal here?”:

…Bob Loevy, professor of political science at Colorado College, said excessively long campaigns lead to extreme scrutiny of candidates’ words. The Senate election is more than a year away.

“My feeling is that he misspoke, the campaign manager corrected it and that’s the end of it,” Loevy said.

My only quibble with the story is its failure to identify the undisputed liberal nature and Democrat ties of the blog that continues to pounce on this issue:

Still, some political watchers interpreted the comment as an opening for Schaffer to back out of the campaign.

Bloggers at ColoradoPols.com, a website for discussions of Colorado politics, latched onto Schaffer’s words as evidence that Schaffer is waffling.

Can you imagine the Post writing a hypothetical story about me and other Rocky Mountain Alliance blogs questioning something Mark Udall was quoted saying in the press, and the story not mention that we lean conservative and Republican? Of course not. I think it would only be fair for our political leanings to be mentioned in that context.

Then again, such transparency in this case would lead us to see how much Colorado’s Lefty activist bloggers really lack something valuable to do in the dog days of summer. But we already knew that.

Wow, this punishing expose by Pajamas Media’ Richard Miniter really lifts the lid on some serious problems at The New Republic. Things don’t look good for Franklin Foer & crew. Scott Thomas Beauchamp looks to be more of a millstone around the bi-weekly liberal publication than was the devastating Stephen Glass saga of 1998 - primarily because its leadership wasted no time in dealing with the perpetrator of fraud.

The “batten down the hatches” plan in action now, as highlighted by Miniter, is doing nothing to rescue their credibility. In fact, the ship of print may be quickly crashing in flames - reminiscent of a real disaster some 70 years past:

Quite sad, really, because so much was avoidable on the part of TNR’s leadership. So easy to accept slander of America’s brave men and women in uniform, so sloppy in its apparently nepotistic system of fact-checking, so quick to heap falsehoods atop fabrications, so steadfast in its denial of countervailing facts, so self-insulating from outside inquiry, so flummoxed and frazzled, so befuddled and bemused, so blithe in its casual dismissal of all remaining credibility … What will be left of the 93-year-old liberal standard after the last ash of this debacle is swept away?

In the wake of Rathergate, another big notch may be added to the belt of some hardworking conservative blogs - led by Dean Barnett, the Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb, Little Green Footballs, Ace of Spades, and Confederate Yankee, among others. But you must read Miniter’s piece … wow, simply wow.

Congrats to Pueblo’s Cesar Chavez Academy (and thanks to Colorado Charters for pointing out the accolades) - one of two charter schools nationwide to be featured as models of excellent education in a U.S. Department of Education documentary video.

This must only make more painful the recent episode of an email sent by state Rep. Mike Merrifield (D-Manitou Springs) to Sen. Sue Windels (D-Arvada), indicating that there is “a special place in hell” for “charterizers” and the like. If one remembers, the specific context of the message was in response to efforts to replicate the highly successful Cesar Chavez Academy model in Colorado Springs. Democrat education committee chairman Merrifield summarily assigned people who wanted to try a proven better program for teaching high-poverty, minority kids a place in the eternal nether regions.

According to Academy principal Lawrence Hernandez, there is a waiting list of roughly 3,000 kids to get into his school of 1,100. While parental demand for success and achievement grows, certain Democrat lawmakers like Merrifield and Windels demonstrate their singular loyalty to their political supporters - the anti-reform roadblock known as the teachers union.

It must feel like salt and vinegar poured into an open wound for Merrifield and Windels to see attention given to the tremendous success of the Pueblo charter school. Yet while they can rest easy at night knowing they have the reins of legislative power, untold thousands of Colorado parents are denied a choice like Cesar Chavez Academy to provide academic opportunity to their kids.

As explained in another recent Colorado Charters post:

Hopefully more public education leaders across America will be more concerned about WHAT works rather than WHO came up with the idea.

Amen to that. Thanks for elected leaders who want to exercise a little common sense in favor of successful models based in parental choice, leaders like Republican Senator Nancy Spence of Centennial:

“For all our efforts to re-examine and reinvent public education on a grand scale — including a blue ribbon panel studying education issues right now — it is looking more and more like one of the best solutions has been right in front of us all along,” Spence said. She denounced attempts by some members of the legislature’s ruling party earlier this year to roll back charter schools.

“I’m still reeling from the latest round of attacks on charters,” Spence said. She added that the General Assembly’s refusal to expand Pueblo’s renowned Cesar Chavez charter program — whose mostly Hispanic and low-income students perennially post impressive achievement scores — was especially ironic.

Very ironic to want to punish those behind one of the nation’s most successful schools with never-ending fire and brimstone. Welcome to a Democrat party with education leaders more beholden to an established system than open to possibilities of what might work for some of the state’s neediest kids.

The Colorado Springs Gazette editorialists bring our attention to a new alternative professional organization for teachers in Colorado: the Professional Association of Colorado Educators (PACE). PACE offers liability insurance, legal coverage, and professional development opportunities without the political baggage:

PACE will not give union dues to political candidates, nor involve itself in political causes, which will come as a relief, we’re sure, to teachers whose politics differ from those of unions that purport to represent them. Remaining apolitical allows PACE to keep membership dues low, at just $15 a month.

PACE dues come to about a quarter of the typical Colorado Education Association dues (amounts vary from local to local, but $60 a month is fairly typical). PACE’s focus is also a bit different than the traditional union focus:

Finally, but critically, PACE recognizes that most teachers are as eager for their students’ success as they are for their own. “It is the teacher in the classroom that makes the difference in a child’s education,” added [executive director Dr. Kris] Enright. “PACE seeks to make a difference in Colorado by helping educators become better professionals so that they are better able serve their students.” For traditional unions, the classroom and the students seem afterthoughts.

Old-style unions will continue to have a following among rank-and-file educators who approve of their partisan activities and worry more about job security than building a 21stcentury school system. But most American teachers, like most American workers, now realize they’re more a hindrance than a help.

In most cases, CEA officials don’t want competition - it’s not good for business. Many local bargaining contracts give their organization exclusive access to teacher mailboxes, emails, bulletin boards, or meetings. But in many other districts, PACE will get a chance to compete on more level turf. I wish Kris Enright and his new organization success. Enright has a wealth and diversity of education experience, including public school classroom teacher, public school principal, higher education researcher, and cyberschool director.
Of course, success for PACE is bad for business for those (mostly Democrat) politicians who make a living off automatically deducted political contributions. But most Coloradans want to see a greater emphasis on teacher professionalism and student achievement.

It appears my last post has stirred up a little East Coast angst in my friend David Harsanyi, the genial libertarian and Denver Post columnist who for the most part is a very sensible, stand-up sort of guy. (Nobody’s perfect.) Well, I may have dashed my chances at getting a free galley copy of his new book Nanny State to review - though there is no denying Harsanyi’s ability to use clever and shameless self-promotion.

I didn’t realize that Harsanyi and I both shared a past as sportswriters - albeit he got to cover the World Series, and I was busy writing about high school track meets and Division II college football.

The best part of this exchange is the sweet, sweet memories of last October and the Yanks’ demise at the hands of the upstart Tigers in the AL divisional playoffs. I can understand why David might still be a little sensitive about it, but at least he has the present and the home-and-home series the two teams share in August. We’ll see who comes out on top after these eight games.

Though many on the team have been feeling under the weather, the Detroit Tigers came out on top of the New York Yankees last night, 8-5. Nothing like heading into the heart of the Evil Empire to win the first of a critical four-game set (unless it turns into a four-game sweep of the Bronx Bombers in their own backyard). And as the struggling bullpen is healing up and returning to normalcy (you can’t come back soon enough, Zoom), let’s go back out there, keep up the momentum, and beat the Yanks!

On this the 30th anniversary of the passing of the legendary Elvis Presley, we pause to reflect on a tremendously successful musical talent remembered today through a long series of sub-par films, dime-a-dozen Las Vegas impersonators, and velvet paintings hung from the walls of mobile homes. As for me, I cried the day Elvis died but haven’t given him much thought since. Well, at least I’m not a hound dog.

Pierre Rehov’s new documentary “Suicide Killers” may be too politically incorrect to receive an Academy Award nomination, but that fact should recommend the film to more American viewers.

And certainly, there were more viewers at last night’s screening at the Colorado History Museum than event organizers anticipated. The modest size of the screen in the large hall forced the rows to be tightly-packed, but most guests eagerly pressed in to get a closer look. Reading the frequent subtitles - absolutely essential to absorbing the film’s startling content - presented a minor challenge of tilting heads and craning necks.

I was drawn in to the disturbing images, largely appropriate in their context and level of graphic detail, as well as the powerful interviews. Specifically, the matter-of-fact words of Palestinian jihadists, would-be jihadists, and jihadist sympathizers steeped in their state-sponsored culture of “shaheed” (martyrdom) acted like a jolt to modern and postmodern Western sensibilities.

The religious, political, and social motivations to destroy innocent life for the perceived glory of rewards in the afterlife are, as one Israeli scholar observed, not the creation of despair (the popular depiction in most media). There is something more deeply sinister at work through the systematic indoctrination of a narrow interpretation of Islamic texts.

That being said, moderate Muslims are also given a prominent voice in Rehov’s film. They provide a balance: A well-educated Iranian-born Frenchwoman who recalled the descriptions of Paradise offered by childhood religious teachers as sounding a lot like America; An Arab Israeli citizen who was not once, but twice, nearly a fatal victim of Palestinian suicide bombers - he held a dying woman in his arms; the Palestinian women’s rights activist who chronicles the subjugation so common to her culture; and the young Palestinian man who pleaded in broken English for an end to his culture’s continuing fixation on violent revenge.

Yet the culture is so steeped in hatred and violence, as demonstrated in clips shown from radical Arab television, including a fictional depiction of Jewish rabbis as bloodthirsty child-killers and a CNN-style debate between leading men regarding whether women should stay out of sight in the home or take part in the jihad of suicide bombing like their male counterparts.

And indeed they have. Rehov’s interviews with four Palestinian women imprisoned in Israel for their roles in planning or promoting suicide attacks left me dumbfounded and disturbed. One woman talked most passionately about the ultimate goal to destroy every non-Muslim in the world (I wonder what she thinks of the “two-state solution,” eh?). Equally as disturbing, the interviews with imprisoned men young and old, pledging their commitment to complete a suicide bombing if ever released. They were to a person cold, calculating, calloused, and thoroughly imbued with dogmatic bloodlust in their internal wiring. A screenwriter or novelist looking to sculpt an archetypal villain could find plenty of material.

All in all, the documentary offered a chilling look at Palestinian culture that is largely missed by international reporters in the mainstream media outlets. Americans engaged in a generations-long war with radical Islamofascism cannot afford to be ignorant about what motivates the enemy. Though the film’s conclusion was a bit ambiguous and some of the contrast between Israeli and Palestinian society seemed a little exaggerated, “Suicide Killers” (you can view the trailer and order online here) remains an important film to see.

The presence of the Algerian-born, French-Israeli filmmaker at last night’s screening was positively inspirational. Given current political realities, Pierre Rehov’s courage can scarcely be doubted.

Last night’s screening was sponsored by the Claremont Institute, Action Israel, and Americans Against Terrorism. Many thanks to these groups for introducing Rehov’s work to a Denver audience and, in particular, to Mount Virtus. Please read a little different perspective on the film by Joshua at View from a Height.