[photopress:ben_toon_elex_college_1.jpg,thumb,pp_image]
"Call your Senator," we urged last month. "The bill to render Colorado's presidential vote irrelevant is parked on Senate calendar, lacking votes for passage. With citizen pressure it will die there on May 6." Legislators must have listened, because on April 30, the bill did die. Score one for conservative common sense.
Immigration: The next wave
Much has been written lately on global demographic trends. The disparity in birthrates between traditional Europeans and Muslim immigrants will alter the culture of Europe, unless these immigrants choose to shed their Muslim traditions and become European. That seems rather unlikely, since fundamentalism is more common among European Muslims than among Muslims in most Middle Eastern countries. Within thirty years Europe will have a Muslim majority, and it is likely that European constitutionalism will give way to the imposition of Islamic law. As Europe becomes Islamic, traditional Europeans will find it uncomfortable staying in an increasingly oppressive environment. They will soon be clamoring to leave their homelands, which will become more restrictive of the freedoms to which they have become accustomed.
Immigration to the US from Latin America is starting to level off, as our neighbors to the south move from the second stage of population growth (high birth/low death rates) to the third stage (low birth/low death rates). There will be less incentive to leave Latin America, as fertility rate decline and globalization increases living standards.
So the next wave of immigration to this country will not be impoverished people looking for employment opportunities, but more prosperous people seeking refuge from Islamic Law and hoping to maintain the freedom they had before Sharia came to dictate life in Europe.
This should be a boon to traditional American values, as the new immigrants will be those who have learned to appreciate the liberties they find here. It will also be a boon to property values, as these new immigrants will bring wealth with them and purchase homes upon their arrival.
Littwin said what?
Slated on Backbone Radio, May 3 Listen every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, Denver... 1460 KZNT, Colorado Springs... and streaming live at 710knus.com.
So this week's big news is that the "GOP's tent keeps getting smaller." At least if we're to believe an April 29 column with that title from Mike Littwin of the Denver Post. Littwin, spinning furiously, manages to make statesmen of the chameleons Specter and Snowe, martyrs of the low-polling Ritter and Bennet, and goats of Steele, Tancredo, Beauprez, Ken Buck, and Ryan Frazier. Quite a morning's work.
Some friends have asked why I keep Mike as a regular on Backbone Radio, once a month or so, when his take on conservatism is always adversarial and sometimes acid. My answer is that we on the right aren't ready for prime time until we can absorb and rebut the worst that such as Littwin can dish out.
Besides, you have to admit, the man is lively company. His renewable-energy output is ten times that of all the other biomass the left wants to foist on us.
** So this Sunday we'll get another gale from the happy hippie's windmill -- and I'll roar back at him, leaving no misdeed unrebuked. Tune in for the fun.
** Plus end-of-session legislative reports from Republican leaders Sen. Josh Penry and Rep. Mike May, House conservative bulldogs Cory Gardner and Frank McNulty, and Democratic provocateur Sen. Chris Romer.
** Plus Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund on how to repel the ACLU onslaught on religious freedom and what to expect from Obama's first Supreme Court nominee.
Speaking of Obie, did you notice how dissent was patriotic when his side was doing it -- but now if you go to a Tea Party or watch Fox News, you're an object of presidential scorn? Funny how that works.
Yours with a zest for the battle, JOHN ANDREWS
Hear 'Budget Reality Check' podcast
As the legislative session ends, fiscal distress flags are flying on the gold dome. For the 2nd time this decade, Colorado is caught with too much spending and too few revenues as the economy struggles. Why can’t the state plan better like your family does? Why do Democrats and the media blame everything on the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights? Will this mess feed the Tea Party spirit in months to come? Get firsthand perspectives from the Capitol when you click to the podcast of "Under the Dome," my April 30 issue special on 710 KNUS in Denver. Here's the link... click here
"Under the Dome: Budget Reality Check" is my conversation with Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry (R-Grand Junction) and State Sen. Chris Romer (D-Denver), along with State Reps. Cory Gardner (R-Yuma) and Frank McNulty (R-Highlands Ranch).
This is the latest edition of a citizens alert we're now doing monthly for Colorado conservatives. Watch for news of our next edition in May -- and thanks for listening!
Too cute by half
George W. Bush had his share of flaws as president, but one of his abiding strengths was his clarity on the most important issues of the day. He was never a good communicator, but you always knew where he stood. He was resolute on protecting America and was willing to put his popularity in the cross hairs of his opponents to do so. He opposed stem-cell research because he is pro-life, and was adamant against the use of tax-payer monies to fund abortions. The Bush clarity was maddening to the left, but was a source of comfort for many in the country who knew that they didn't have to guess on a daily basis where the president stood. Contrast that with Barack Obama, and you are struck by the difference. As during the campaign, Obama still seeks to be all things to all people, trying to split the middle in lawyer-like fashion in order to make everyone happy. His statements on many issues have been muddled and confused, because he is apparently interested in being able to argue both sides with equal conviction. It makes for a fine lawyer. But does it make for a good president?
Daniel Henninger has an interesting take on it today in an opinion piece entitled "Harry, I have a gift". Here's an excerpt:
Early in the campaign, in January 2007, a New York Times reporter wrote a story about Mr. Obama's time as president of the Harvard Law Review. It was there, the reporter noted, "he first became a political sensation."
Here's why: "Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once." Also: "People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama's words."
Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree told how Mr. Obama spoke on one contentious issue at the law school, and each side thought he was endorsing their view. Mr. Ogletree said: "Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me."
The reason I have never forgotten this article is its last sentence, in which Al Gore's former chief of staff Ron Klain, also of Harvard Law, reflects on the Obama sensation: "The interesting caveat is that is a style of leadership more effective running a law review than running a country."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a book out next week, tells of congratulating freshman Sen. Obama on a phenomenal speech. Without a hint of conceit, Mr. Obama replied, "Harry, I have a gift."
He does. We know from tradition, though, that when the gods bestow magic on mortals, the gift can also imperil its possessor. The first hint of potential peril in Mr. Obama's gift arrived last week with the confusion over where the president stood on the terrorist interrogation memos and prosecution of former Bush officials. Here, as 19 years ago, many on both sides of a contentious issue who heard him speak thought Mr. Obama agreed with them.
Henninger goes on to discuss the confusion over the interrogation memos and the potential prosecutions of the memo-writers, when Rahm Emanuel said decisively "no" to prosecutions and the President said "well, maybe". The President was, as is his want, trying to give grist to the left in his public statement, while his staff later took great pains to clarify that he "wants to move on" from this chapter and isn't really interested in a prolonged "witch hunt", etc. It was splitting the difference in a way that Obama likes -- saying enough to appease his base but not so much that he can be pinned down to any clear position. It's Obama's way to use his "gift" to obfuscate and confuse, to distract people from his real intentions. He did it brilliantly during his campaign, where he appeared to be a moderate post-partisan politician who wanted to "change" Washington. The reality as we now know is quite different: a highly partisan pol who doesn't seem strong enough to stand up to the most partisan groups in the Democratic Party.
There is a very real danger when the gift for gab become a substitute for clear thought and concise communication. Perhaps the president's teleprompter has too much sway in this administration, taking the president on verbal forays that are too cute by half. It is bad enough when it confuses the American public. It is worse when it confuses our enemies into believing that we are weak and willing to compromise on even the most vital of national security issues.
I'd take clarity over the gift, any day.