Over the next few days I’m again expanding the scope of this site.
In November 2008 I started the Reclaim the Blue blog. Then last fall I expanded the blog to include the audio files of the radio broadcasts I was doing at the time. The result was The Voice of Liberty website. The blog’s name remains and is forwarded to the new VoL site.
In the meantime, I have served as a writer and assistant editor for The Constitutionalist Today as well as other online news outlets such as the Peoples’ Press Collective. With the demise of The Constitutionalist Today, I became Editor in Chief of The Patriot Today and we published two highly regarded issues this spring. Unfortunately, this newspaper also fell victim to the poor economy as ad revenues to support a print edition were not forthcoming.
Over the past two years I have been privileged to work with a very large number of talented Colorado writers who need and deserve a platform to express their facts, observations, ideas, opinions, and reports. Print media is simply too costly. Online we can reach a larger and potentially unlimited audience, quickly. So beginning this 4th of July weekend a new Voice of Liberty news magazine-style website will replace the current blog-centric site.
As the movement to restore the American republic grows and matures, we plan to record and chronicle that movement.
by David Kelly
Getting a taste of tavern style politics, Colorado House Majority Leader, Amy Stephens (R-Monument) found herself answering questions from liberty lovers at Tuesday evening’s Colorado Springs Liberty on the Rocks (LOTR) meeting. Ironically, Stephens’s first visit to LOTR followed less than one week from the publication of the Colorado Springs Independent article that featured the turmoil in the El Paso County GOP. In that article, Amy was quoted as blaming libertarians within the Liberty movement for the open rebellion.
Unlike the one-sided town hall meeting that Amy Stephens held in March where constituents had little chance of airing their concerns about AmyCare–SB200–LOTR’s 30-second soapbox proved that freedom of speech would prevail; this was a perfect opportunity for many to finally be heard. Kanda Calef thanked Stephens for attending and then boldly asked Stephens to respond to a few questions regarding SB200.
Amy took the floor and responded as the questions brought out passionate debate and at times jeering from those witnessing this spontaneous unscripted discourse. Stephens pointed out that it was a State’s Rights issue. At one point during her defensive response, a gentleman could take no more political double-speak and called out her comment as being “B.S.” This provoked Amy Stephens to agree and she changed her tune while still floating her hubris-infected explanation.
Stephen’s refused to discuss other legislation and threatened to step down and end the debate saying that she wasn’t here to be grilled. She did accept questions on SB200 during the half hour debate, which many in attendance felt were not answered but filled instead with political bloviating. Amy proved that she is a seasoned politician who is ill- informed, lacking empirical knowledge while ignoring the true pulse of her constituents.
If anything, Stephens now knows that the Liberty movement does not reside in the fantasy land of Libertopia, but is alive and well in communities across this nation. Passionate political activists live there and will succeed in bringing individual liberties and freedoms back to our Republic.
David Kelly runs the Colorado Springs chapter of Liberty on the Rocks, which meets the first and third Tuesdays of the month, usually at the Dublin House.
This video from Secure Border Intel shows drug smugglers traversing the area where the Murphy fire burns:
The video was captured by a game camera placed on a known smuggling trail in Ramanote Canyon, a remote area in the Coronado National Forest, 7 miles west of Rio Rico, Arizona and 8 miles north of the US-Mexico border. This area is closed to the public and the illegals smuggling drugs were the only people caught traversing the area within a thirty-day period.
Check out the video and additional commentary on YouTube.
The burlap backpacks are made for carrying marijuana; when I visited southern Arizona last summer I saw many of these discarded just south of Interstate 8 west of Tucson.
A couple of weeks ago, I encouraged readers to answer a poll put out by Sen Bennet about deficit reduction. Apparently, he didn’t want to get responses that conflicted with his (or perhaps his party handlers’) preconceived notions about what the right policy is.
I was automatically unsubscribed from his newsletter.
I thought it must have been some kind of mistake, perhaps I’d just clicked the wrong button or something. In the end, clearly I had. So when I got the unsubscribe verification email, I re-subscribed.
This week I got another poll. This time it was about the safety of medicines and the solution was that the FDA should have more power to inspect drugs. (Don’t they already have this power?) Here’s question one:
What approach would you take to ensure greater safety of pharmaceutical drugs?
- The government needs to inspect drug and drug ingredient facilities more to ensure safety and quality
- The pharmaceutical industry needs to inspect their own ingredient facilities more to ensure safety and quality
- There needs to be a hybrid approach of public and private solutions to ensure safety and quality
- No action
I know what his answer is: more government. It’s always more government. Since I’m not sure there really is a problem, I checked “No action.” Bingo! Immediately unsubscribed. No chance to answer question two. This time I figured out what was going on.
His email says:
Please take a moment to answer the following survey to send your message to Washington. I will share the results online to begin a longer discussion regarding this topic.
I’ll bet he will. I bet I know what the results will be and what his position is. Further, I’ll bet the position is already drafted. A real open-minded kind of guy.
The header of Sen Bennet’s email newsletter says “U.S. Senator for Colorado.” I think not. Water carrier for the left is more like it. Agree with him or don’t bother voicing your opinion.
This time I think I’ll stay unsubscribed.
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel today reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled to reinstate the collective bargaining law passed by the Wisconsin legislature in March and block almost immediately by liberal activist judge Marianne Sumi, whose son is a union activist. Importantly, the court wrote that:
choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the state of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts.
That should be obvious but these days it needs to be said. Further, the court
…concluded that Sumi exceeded her jurisdiction, “invaded” the Legislature’s constitutional powers and erred in halting the publication and implementation of the collective bargaining law.
That should be the end of it but it won’t be. Nine state senators–six Republicans and three Democrats–face recall elections this summer. Democrat lawyers are busy preparing a host of other lawsuits. For decades now, the left has tried to use the courts to enact their agenda when they couldn’t get it through the legislature.
Stand with the people of Wisconsin–because tyranny never sleeps.
Friday afternoon, Sen Bennett sent out a newsletter seeking ideas about reducing the deficit. The links in the newsletter don’t work, but there is a link to go here and answer the two questions online.
You get to pick one choice of a reduction plan:
- Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan
- A comprehensive plan (spending cuts, changes to entitlements, tax reform) based on the President’s Fiscal Responsibility Commission
- President Obama’s deficit reduction framework
- No Action
There are embedded links to the three plans. None is sufficient. If you really want to see what’s needed, visit the Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government site. I’m not going to tell you which one to pick but I’m going to bet you’re going to pick something the senator doesn’t expect.
The second question is an “all that apply” kind of question.
What components would you like to see in a debt reduction plan? (Choose all that apply.)
- Cuts in discretionary spending (not including defense spending)
- Cuts in discretionary spending that include defense cuts
- Reforms of entitlement programs such as Medicare
- Tax reform
- A comprehensive plan that includes cuts in discretionary spending, entitlement reforms, and tax reforms
- No debt reduction plan is necessary
This is an interesting list. The Democrats lay great stress on legislation being “bipartisan.” This didn’t seem important to them when they controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress so one suspects their motives now. Obviously, any deficit reduction before January 2013 will have to be bipartisan. Their track record indicates that it means compromise–and not in a good way but rather closing the deficit by less than we would like.
The next four all seem to roll up into the fifth and those–like me–who favor cutting everywhere might be tempted to check pretty much everything. As one who designs survey questions, I wonder why this was an “all that apply” type question when all the combinations can be had by checking just one box. The exception, of course, is the “bipartisan” red herring, which is not about what to cut at all but rather something about how the decision should be reached.
Tax reform by itself is quite misleading: to free market adherents like me it means tax reduction and simplification; to Sen Bennett I think it means closing off tax exemptions for people or groups not politically aligned with him or actual tax increases.
Answer carefully but let the senator know what you think. It will be interesting to see whether he releases the results.
The press is trying hard to call the Republican race for the 2012 presidential nomination before it’s even begun. I suppose it is inevitable, given the surety on the Democrat side. There’s no story there. Still, they seem like a bunch of sharks in a feeding frenzy. Just as soon as a new name is thrown into the water they converge, telling us why that person can’t win. When someone (Christie, Huckabee) decides not to run, they tell us why it would have been a bad idea to run—confirming the decision and trying to make sure they don’t change their minds.
Here’s what I see happening, based on what we saw in 2010 and have heard so far this year.
We already know that the establishment media is still in love with Obama and that unions will marshal their considerable resources along with Organizing for Obama (OFA) and the seriously well-organized and aligned resources of the DNC. We are also already seeing that their guns are aimed at anyone who dares to stick his or her head up to declare against the Chosen One.
How will they attack? It will be extremely negative. They have nothing they can campaign on. It will be modeled on the lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations we saw in the Colorado senate campaign. There is nothing they won’t say or do in order to win. The biggest victim will be the truth. DNC Chair Wasserman-Schutz is the primary example of that.
So here is my prediction. If we are to get the thugs out of government, we must of course win the presidency. The only way to do that is by a team effort. Republicans cannot unfairly attack each other. In fact, it will have to be more like a bicycle race, in which the leader breaks the headwind while the others draft on the leader until it is time to sprint for the finish line.
Donald Trump provided a great lead diversion; too bad it’s over already. It might be that Sarah Palin has taken the new lead with her bus tour. We shall see. The object is to keep them guessing as long as possible.
United we stand; divided we fall.