Living in the real world

It's hard not to feel sorry for David Cook of Loveland, who lives in a very scary world where liberal bogeymen lurk behind every corner. I sure hope Dave doesn't get too lonesome, though, because the rest of us have to live in the real world.

In Dave's world, liberals are disgusting the voters. In the real world, Republican corruption, immorality, malfeasance, and plain old stupidity over the last 12 years have done more to disgust and discourage voters than anything else imaginable. You can't blame liberals for that, except maybe for not working hard enough to stop it.

In Dave's world, illegal immigrants will be granted amnesty by liberals. In the real world, George W. Bush and John McCain have a plan to legalize the presence of illegal immigrants by turning them into indentured servants working for slave wages. Not exactly amnesty, is it?

In Dave's world, polygamy will become legal. In the real world... Oh, never mind.

In Dave's world, liberal judges write laws. In the real world, special interests write most of the laws in Congress. The majority of judges in America have been appointed by Republican presidents and governors, or elected by the people. Since 2001, George W. Bush has ignored nearly 800 laws passed by Congress. In the real world, judges would get a chance to hold him accountable.

In Dave's world, liberals kill babies. In the real world, liberals recognize that sometimes tough decisions have to be made by a woman after discussions with her family, her physician, and God. In the end, the decision is up to a woman alone, and she alone will have to deal with the consequences.

In Dave's world, liberals aren't Christians. In the real world, liberals pray for folks like Dave every day. Our God is powerful, and He sure doesn't need the help of government to get His message across. We ask God to help folks like Dave understand that, and to stop trivializing religion in His name.

In Dave's world, taxes are evil. In the real world, America is drowning in debt that our grandchildren will have to repay to the Chinese. Liberals recognize that isn't fair, and that something has to be done about it.

In Dave's world, we pick and choose who is eligible for basic human rights. In the real world, when we deny those human rights to others and to our own citizens, and when we flout the Geneva conventions, America becomes just as evil as the terrorists who would destroy us.

In Dave's world, sticking your head in the sand is staying the course. In the real world, you fix a failed strategy. You don't deny its failure and attack those who point it out in the first place. You figure out what went wrong, you hold those in charge responsible, and you clean up the mess.

Dave's world is a scary place, but it's not real. We must all remember that and make sure that we vote in the real world on November 7.

Both Ways Bob is at it again

I had to laugh this past week when I heard Bob Beauprez defending the illegal use of information from the NCIC crime database, claiming that the ICE agent who passed along the dirt was just a well-meaning whistle blower.

Way back in June of this year, Bob voted in favor of a House resolution condemning whistle blowers who uncovered illegal acts committed by the Bush administration and then had the temerity to publish the information in the newspaper.

Apparently, a whistle blower who illegally reveals confidential information that can be used to smear political opponents is OK with Both Ways Bob, but a whistle blower who publishes publicly available information about the Bush administration's illegal acts is not. Does that mean that Bob is actually the one who is soft on crime, since he is opposed to even revealing the existence of known lawbreakers, let alone prosecuting them?

Way to go, Bob! Keep that moral compass spinning!

Silence on domestic terrorism

Newsday had this item about a terrorist attack in my home state of Iowa. It certainly got no coverage in the Denver Post (I can't say about the Rocky Mountain News, as I don't subscribe). According to Jennifer Pozner, the author:

On Sept. 11, 2006, the fifth anniversary of the terror attacks that devastated our nation, a man crashed his car into a building in Davenport, Iowa, hoping to blow it up and kill himself in the fire.

No national newspaper, magazine or network newscast reported this attempted suicide bombing, though an AP wire story was available. Cable news (save for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann) was silent about this latest act of terrorism in America.

The terrorist attack was on a medical clinic that the attacker thought provided abortion services (it doesn't). Instead, the clinic provides a variety of women's health services to low income residents in Davenport, Iowa. Or at least it did until a terrorist tried to blow a car-sized hole in the building.

Now, I am no wild-eyed supporter of unfettered abortion rights. I support access to abortion in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother's health, and fetal inviability, and I certainly do not view abortion as just another routine birth control method. But, I am astounded at the so-called liberal media's failure to report on domestic terrorists who believe that they have Jesus's sanction to murder anyone whose views disagree with their twisted logic.

What is the difference between these fanatics and those who flew airplanes into buildings on 9/11? None at all, as far as I can tell.

More on clean elections

I ran across this item on Colorado Confidential. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one in Colorado who thinks that this method for funding election campaigns is a good idea.

I also found an organization called Public Campaign, which is working on a national level for clean elections legislation. Check them out...

Clean elections in 2008?

I have been reading about the Arizona Clean Elections Act, and I am convinced that the time has come for Colorado to adopt similar legislation in time for the 2008 election cycle. Here are a few key points from the state of Arizona web site:

Question: What is the Citizens Clean Elections Campaign Act?
Answer: One of the country’s most comprehensive public financing systems, the Citizens Clean Elections Act was initiated and passed by Arizona voters in 1998. The Act is an innovative campaign finance reform measure that created full public funding of campaigns to qualified candidates who wish to run for statewide and legislative offices.

Question: What is the purpose of the Citizens Clean Elections Campaign Act?
Answer: By encouraging broad-reaching citizen participation in the political process and eliminating special-interest monies in campaigns, the Act levels the playing field for qualified candidates by providing limited and equal funding, and enables registered voters to support their preferred candidates through affordable contributions and grass-roots support. Also, the Act allows candidates to focus their campaigns on the issues in the best interest of Arizonans, not funding.

Question: What has the Act done for Arizona political candidates?
Answer: Overall, it has given an increasing number of qualified candidates the ability to run for public office. Since enactment though 2002, the system distributed $14.6 million to 198 candidates. And by 2002, participation in Clean Elections grew to nearly 250 candidates. The Citizens Clean Elections Act is thought to have contributed to an increase in the number of campaign contributions from voters that were collected across the State, from approximately 30,000 in 1998 to more than 90,000 in 2002. In 2002, candidates running with Clean Elections funding won seven of the nine statewide offices and 32 legislative seats out of 90. In November 2004, with 90 legislative seats available and four Arizona Corporation Commission positions available, 122 candidates are running Clean Elections campaigns.

Question: Has Clean Elections been successful in increasing the number of “participating” candidates?
Answer: Yes. The percentage of people running as participating candidates rather than as traditional candidates has increased every election cycle. In 2000 only 26% of the primary candidates ran using clean elections funding. The number of candidates jumped in 2002 to 56% and increased once again in 2004 to 61%.

I don't have any figures for 2006 yet, but I am willing to bet that the number of candidates is well above 61%.

I urge every voter to contact each of their legislative candidates to ask them to pledge support for getting a Colorado Clean Elections Act passed in 2007.

Are we rich if we don't feed the poor?

The October 02, 2006 edition of the Christian Science Monitor asked the question, "Are we rich if we don't feed the poor?" The story contained these sobering statistics:

Last year, more than 1,200 New York soup kitchens and food pantries distributed about 67 million pounds of food to the city's poor and sometimes hungry. That's up 50 percent in five years.

...

Meanwhile, the average chief executive officer at a large American firm last year got 411 times an average US worker's pay, up from 107 times in 1990.

The prophet Isaiah had this to say about hunger and the poor (Isaiah 58:6-7):

Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

So much for those who claim that the United States is a Christian nation. I have a feeling that they don't spend much time reading Isaiah...