Mount Virtus

I forgot to recap the Samsphere Denver established blogger participants, and now it’s small-group discussion time. Here’s the whole list of bloggers, with those in my group highlighted in bold:

CONFIRMED BLOGGERS
Anthony Surace at Rocky Mountain Right
Denise Mund at Colorado Charter Schools
Brian Schwartz at Wakalix
John Martin at The Drunkablog
Ray Thomas at The Thoma$ Report
Randy Ketner at Night Twister
Ben DeGrow at Mount Virtus
Michael Sandoval at Slapstick Politics
Ross Kaminsky at Rossputin
Jon Caldara at The Cauldron
Brad Jones at Face the State
David Harsanyi at David Harsanyi
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom
Patrick Sperry at Conservative Libertarian Outpost
Bob Ball at The Daily Blogster
Marty Neilson at Colorado Taxpayer
Bob Agard at Bob’s Blog
Richard Combs at Combs Spouts Off
David Petteys at Backbone America

Also a couple of new novice bloggers here. Lots of ideas being shared. I can feel the energy growing.

It’s April 19, and I’m hanging out at a Denver bloggers convention sponsored by a group named after one of the Founding generation’s most vocal patriots.

The coincidence? It was 233 years ago today that a band of ragtag patriots on Lexington Green fired the “shot heard ’round the world” that eventually defeated the army of the world’s most powerful empire. (Pictures up at Slapstick Politics, who beat me to the idea.)

And here today in Denver is a band of ragtag pro-freedom bloggers, ready to counter the heavily-funded Left-wing statists who are working to turn Colorado blue.

I just received this email from a friend. Since supporting Cory Voorhis a worthy cause, and the event is very timely and in the neighborhood, here goes:

18 months ago, federal agent Cory Voorhis was accused of breaking the law for bringing to light a dangerous practice of plea bargains for illegal immigrants. Just last week, a jury found him not guilty of those charges. But even after being found innocent, he and his family still face over $250,000 in legal bills. This great American needs our help!

On Sunday, come meet Cory and support his Legal Defense Fund! Bring your friends and forward this message to help spread the word.

Where: Abrusci’s Restaurant
3324 Youngfield
Wheat Ridge, CO

When: Sunday, April 20, 2008, 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm

Cost: Whatever you can give

Even if you can’t make it, please visit www.corylegaldefense.com to make an online contribution to Cory Voorhis’ Legal Defense Fund. Any amount would be greatly appreciated.

Over at Schaffer v Udall, I have brought to light evidence that challenges the Big Blue Lie Machine’s assumptions and characterizations of Bob Schaffer’s involvement with the Northern Marianas Islands issue, which has gotten press coverage in the Denver Post recently. It’s a long post, but hope if you have an interest in this issue that you will check it out.

Rep. Sara Gagliardi, D-Arvada, my state representative, earned the special distinction of having a bad legislative idea dismantled by the fair-minded editors of the Rocky Mountain News:

Perhaps the best thing that can be said about the American Dream Protection Act of 2008, due to be introduced in the legislature at any time, is that it’s not likely to be as bad as many of its counterparts under consideration in other states - and in Congress.

Unlike those other measures, Colorado’s bill addressing home foreclosures, by Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, and Sara Gagliardi, D-Arvada, would not require substantial public subsidies. Nor would it place taxpayers on the hook for a massive bailout if the credit crunch intensifies.

That said, if the bill as filed still resembles the original descriptions, it is a bad idea and would provide little relief to delinquent homeowners.

Anytime a legislator proposes a idea, and the best argument on its behalf is “it could have been worse,” that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.

People who mean well often do quite the opposite - a truism that reflects much of the modern Left-liberal movement. No one doubts Rep. Sara Gagliardi’s good intentions, but the Rocky’s editors excoriate her bill for the unintended consequences that figure to be reaped from its fiscal illiteracy:

Under current law, foreclosure is hardly a speedy process. It can easily take seven or eight months. Before a lender can file a foreclosure proceeding, a mortgage payment has to be at least 90 days late. The sale of the home must take place between 110 and 125 days after filing. Up to the date of the sale, the homeowner can “cure” the default and halt the foreclosure by catching up on delinquent payments and paying any back interest, late charges and the legal fees of the lender.

Ironically, any moratorium on a foreclosure may be just as likely to aggravate a particular problem as solve it. That’s because mortgage payments, interest penalties and late fees would continue to pile up - and the borrower would be responsible for those as well as the payments from the original period of default.

In other words, unless a homeowner hits the lottery, the delay would actually increase his indebtedness.

In addition to its serious fiscal shortcomings, Rep. Gagliardi’s legislation also may be patently unconstitutional, argues The Colorado Index - based on the fact it violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on states “impairing the obligation of contracts.”

I am not formally trained in case law to offer any sort of professional opinion about the constitutionality of the Gagliardi-Ferrandino proposal. “Lawmakers should rarely allow third parties (in this case, judges) to rewrite the terms of duly negotiated contracts,” the Rocky’s editors write. Whether or not it’s unconstitutional, the bill certainly doesn’t meet the necessary high threshold to violate negotiated contracts.

The so-called “American Dream Protection Act of 2008″ is just a rotten idea. I hope to see Sara Gagliardi recant and withdraw it, or maybe her opponent John Bodnar - a longtime Realtor with extensive experience in the housing market - will make an issue of it.

For the auditory learners out there, check out my new podcast with Jon Caldara on Gov. Bill Ritter’s union “employee partnerships.” Visual learners can turn to the full report, or if you’re short on time, the two-page nuts and bolts version.

One month after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller was heard, the Republican Study Committee of Colorado is hosting a discussion tomorrow on the topic of Second Amendment rights:

The Second Amendment Rearmed?
How Washington, D.C. v. Heller Could Reaffirm the Right of Personal Self Protection in Colorado

The Republican Study Committee of Colorado
Ad Hoc Hearing

Friday, April 18, 2008
1:00 - 3:00
Old Supreme Court Chambers
Colorado State Capitol

Confirmed Presenters:

Dave Kopel, Research Director, Independence Institute

Darin Goens, Colorado State Liaison, National Rifle Association

Dudley Brown, Executive Director, National Association for Gun Rights and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

William Perry Pendley, President and Chief Legal Officer, Mountain States Legal Foundation

For further information, please contact:
Representative Kent Lambert, RSCC Chair (303) 866-2937
Representative Kevin Lundberg, RSCC Vice-Chair (303) 866-2907
Senator Ted Harvey, RSCC Secretary (303) 866-4881
Senator David Schultheis, RSCC Treasurer (303) 866-4835
Senator Greg Brophy, RSCC Whip (303) 866-6360

Jon Caldara also has an announcement at his site.

For the second time in the span of a week, I have been quoted in the Rocky Mountain News. Quite astonishing, really, except for the fact that the writers of these stories on all the political battles over right-to-work and other initiatives must be glad to find a different voice than the standard pro-business and pro-labor mouthpieces. I was glad to be able to give a pro-liberty view to the article:

“The Labor Peace Act is unique and offers some protection, but it doesn’t offer complete protection,” said Benjamin DeGrow, an analyst at the Independence Institute. “Anything that best protects the individual worker’s right to decide what they want is the right sort of policy.”

Instead of addressing the argument in the story, the other side attacked the motives of those supporting individual workers’ rights:

The “freedom-of-choice” argument promoted by the “right-to- work” advocates falls flat with some longtime labor observers. “The folks who want ‘right-to- work’ understand it just simply undermines the ability for unions to finance what they do,” said Roland Zullo of the University of Michigan Labor Studies Center. “It’s not about giving people the right to choose.”

Professor Zullo certainly is skilled at reading minds and divining motivations.

Zullo noted that workers in the states without “right-to-work” laws can opt not to pay the portion of fees that go toward political activities.

Technically, yes, as a pat answer. These are called “Beck rights” for workers in the private sector. But consider the following problems:
- Many workers are not aware of Beck rights
- Workers must resign union membership in order to exercise Beck rights
- Legal enforcement of Beck rights is weak, often proving costly and time-consuming
- Unions often work to resist the exercise of Beck rights (here’s just one example among many)

Obviously the good professor has never tried to file an objection to get a refund of union political expenses. A true concern for individual workers’ rights would be to let them decide not only their rights of association but also the right to fund freely organizations they support and to withhold funds freely from organizations they do not support.

I hope the professor does not believe that labor unions (or any other organizations) are justified in using any means, including coercion, to “finance what they do.”

The problems with Gov. Bill Ritter’s $200,000-plus in misspent inaugural committee funds raises more questions beyond his apparent gross lack of oversight.

In total, about $300,000 in inauguration funds were spent on campaign expenses. Campaign manager Greg Kolomitz returned the $83,250 that was paid to himself and his company, leaving roughly $217,000 still improperly spent.

But a question I have yet to see answered is why so much money was needed in Ritter’s inaugural fund in the first place. Seems quite extravagant.

A quick trip back in time to the tenure of Colorado’s last Democratic governor, Roy Romer, hints at a sharp contrast. From the January 3, 1991, edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette (no direct link available):

In 1987, Romer’s inaugural ball cost taxpayers $10,000 to $15,000, said Romer spokeswoman Cindy Parmenter.

She said the 1991 inauguration will cost under $6,000, compared to 1987’s total cost of $25,000. “The first time we had to spend money on staff, telephones and things we already have,” she explained.

I know there’s such a thing as inflation, but not enough to account for $300,000 in spending. The questions I have yet to see answered are: 1) How much did Bill Ritter’s inaugural committee raise? 2) How much did Bill Ritter’s inaugural committee spend on legitimate expenses? 3) Why was so much money needed in Bill Ritter’s inaugural committee? What cost so much at the inaugural party?

Maybe some inquisitive journalist out there can find the answers. In the meantime, the Bill Ritter Democrat seems like a far more extravagant (and irresponsible) figure than the Roy Romer Democrat.

Cross posted at Ritter Watch

One of Colorado’s brightest, most respected conservative leaders - Mark Hillman - is running to represent the state party as Republican National Committeeman. He is running against state senator Dave Schultheis, a rock-ribbed conservative from Colorado Springs.

How disappointed I was to see an anonymous online writer quoting unidentified sources to spread misinformation about Mark Hillman’s fiscal conservative bona fides vis a vis Referendum C. I am only left to wonder where exactly the cowardly attacks are coming from.

Face The State highlighted the absurd flap today, giving Hillman an opportunity to recite his record of opposition to Ref C:

As far as the suggestion that Hillman was not aggressive enough in opposing Referendum C, Hillman defended his recorded [sic], saying that he publicly opposed the tax increase prior to its 2005 passage by attending opposition rallies, writing columns, and publicly speaking out against the measure. “In 2005, I wrote at least two op-eds explaining the flaws of Ref C and why I was opposed to it, with one published in the Denver Post,” he said.

I also appreciated Mark Hillman’s thoughtful response to the nature of the attacks:

When the article was brought to Hillman’s attention, he responded to Face The State by saying, “I don’t pay attention to anonymous attacks. When the Founding Fathers wrote anonymously, they did so to debate issues and principles, not to hurl cowardly, baseless accusations at each other. The Founders understood honor; anonymous bloggers do not.”

Assuming the anonymous quotes are legitimate, my guess is that they represent a small fringe. I’ve never heard even a breath of such complaints in any of my Republican circles. Insomuch as they know Hillman or know about him, most conservative Colorado Republicans probably agree with the assessment of one of the leading anti-Referendum C voices:

Former Senate President John Andrews, R-Centennial, adamantly disagrees with the attacks on Hillman, calling him “a tiger for the taxpayer.” Hillman served as senate majority leader during Andrews’s tenure as the chamber’s president. “He served very honorably as acting state treasurer and nothing he did or didn’t do made a difference in the passage of Referendum C.”

Hillman is right not to pay any heed to the destructive whisper campaign. And I’d hope that his rival, Senator Schultheis, would disavow it as well. No one can credibly call either of their conservative records into question.

But when it comes to effective leadership, I believe Mark Hillman is the more qualified candidate, and am glad to give Hillman my unqualified personal endorsement to represent Colorado as Republican National Committeeman.

Via Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, a new poll shows Republican presidential candidate John McCain with a commanding, double-digit lead here in Colorado versus either Democrat contender - Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton:

McCain 51, Obama 39
McCain 52, Clinton 40

Something is happening on the way to the Left’s plan to turn Colorado blue: Their leaders are generating more disdain than those who have sold out conservatives on the Republican side. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.

While it takes longer for things happening at the state level to reach the average voter, one can almost imagine some of the reaction against Obama and Clinton trickling down to their inept liberal buddies - like Gov. Bill Ritter and Rep. Mark Udall. Just wait until the Democratic National Convention comes to town….

Face The State features a story today about a Denver construction site that has posted a sign restricting work to union membership:

A sign at a downtown Denver construction site warns, “If you are not currently an active member of a building trades local union, you are NOT allowed to work on this site.”

Picture by Steve Brown - Posted at Face The State

This story prompts a reaction from two different angles.

First, from the legal technical policy wonk side…. Under existing federal law that dates back to the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, private sector “closed shops” are illegal. Simply put, a “closed shop” requires workers to be union members when they’re hired. That seems to be the message of the sign, which would make it patently illegal. To test the case, a non-union laborer who was rejected from working on the site could file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board - which has a regional Denver office.

(In contrast to “closed shops,” “union shops” - “where nonmembers must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs” - are legal in some cases. What are more commonly referred to as “closed shops” - work sites where workers don’t have to join the union but have to pay a fee to the union that in most cases is almost 100% of union dues value - are actually “agency shops.” Admittedly, these are distinctions with very small differences, but a certain Left-wing “watchdog” groups makes a living off criticizing misuses of this terminology.)

Second, from a political point of view, should a story like this one gain traction and publicity, it could only be good for the “right-to-work” ballot initiative, and bad for Democrat and union leaders who want a peaceful, Big Labor-friendly Convention in August.

Only three days remain until Samsphere reaches Denver. Whether you’ve been blogging for years or just want to figure out how to get started, this is the place to be. If you live in the Denver area and have a chance to make it on Saturday, register now before the last few spots fill up.