Thank God John McCain lost in 2008. Obama's radical agenda will bring about the revitalization of the Republican party through grassroots citizen activism that would have been impossible under a McCain presidency.

By Tom Tancredo*

Eight months into the Obama presidency the Republican Party is suddenly thriving by virtue of the patriotic reawakening generated by Obama’s radicalism. But the Republican revival may be short lived if it does not listen to the voice of the new citizen activists.

Obama was elected on the strength of Bush exhaustion syndrome and Obama’s plausible promise of “hope and change.” But now that Obama has unveiled his truly radical agenda, middle class Americans are understandably alarmed.

Obama’s radical program has provoked a grassroots rebellion of historic proportions. While the Republican Party may be one beneficiary of this rebellion, the rebellion itself has nothing to do with party allegiance or party organization. Indeed, some Republican elites feel as threatened by this new activism as Obama Democrats.

What is astounding and unprecedented in recent American politics is that this authentic citizen protest arose entirely outside of political party structures. Republican officials had virtually nothing to do with organizing the Tea Party protests that began in April or the town hall protests in August or the historic gathering of over one million people on the Capitol Mall on September 12.

Millions of Americans are seeing the radical, Marxist character of the Obama agenda for the first time. The attempted government takeover of health care, a crippling new energy tax, his affirmative action Supreme Court appointment, the World Apology Tour, the Justice Department attack on the CIA interrogation of terrorists, and now the abandonment of NATO allies on missile defense — none of this was foretold in the platitudes of the 2008 election campaign. Obama’s agenda is the fulfillment of the dreams and fantasies of the left wing of the Democrat Party, but our political and media elites were all taken by surprise. Obama is not the “pragmatic centrist” voters thought they were getting.

The unprecedented citizen activism that brought 1.5 million ordinary American to the Capitol Mall a week after the Labor Day holiday is in part a predictable reaction to Obama’s radicalism, but it is also more than that. Something more profound is also at work. The fact that it has developed outside the established political structures is a story that has not yet been told because it does not fit the dominant “narrative” of American politics: genuine grassroots populism is supposed to always be from the left, not the right.

Obama’s radical agenda is forcing the Republican Party to confront a fundamental issue it tries hard to avoid. Is the Republican Party going to seek compromise with Obama’s radical agenda to prove they are committed to the same “compassionate” agenda, or will it provide leadership based on a different vision for America?

The sad truth is that this new activism, this rediscovery of constitutional limits on government and principled resistance to further expansion of entitlement spending, could never have emerged if John McCain had won the 2008 election. If John McCain had enshrined his anemic “hands across the aisle” pragmatism as the official language of the party of Lincoln and Reagan, the Republican Party would have continued its sorrowful drift.

What is most fascinating and encouraging and revolutionary about this mushrooming grassroots activism is that it is more than a reaction to Obama’s radical program. It is more than “just say no.” It also a rediscovery and reaffirmation of the conservative principles that were abandoned or belittled by Republican Party elites in the Bush era.

The grassroots activism of the Tea Party rallies and 912 protests is almost the exact opposite of a traditional political rally organized by a candidate for public office. The purpose of these rallies is to save our country, not elect some candidate. In fact, there is often a large element of “pox on both your houses” in these protests, and Republican candidates who think they can run on traditional themes in 2010 without addressing these new challenges will have a rude awakening.

Yes, we all know that compromise is a necessary part of governance. But what the new citizen activists are demanding is that compromise be based on a constitutional, limited government, low-tax agenda. A little arsenic will kill you a little slower than a larger dose, but please don’t serve it with a chocolate mousse and call it dessert.

What course the Republican Party will take at this crossroads is an open question. Old habits die hard. Just as George Bush was tone deaf on illegal immigration, many in the Republican Party leadership are loath to acknowledge that the mainstream media is in the pocket of the Democrat Party and new modes of communication and organization are needed. The hardest words for a Republican moderate to utter are, “Rush Limbaugh was right.”

But what is clear is that there is no going back to “hands across the aisle bipartisanship” that gave us McCain-Feingold and is too often a substitute for principled leadership. We do not need more snake oil of the “no entitlement left behind” variety. The day of reckoning for reckless government spending is at hand.

The “Help (Desperately) Wanted” sign is hanging in the window. Only leaders who can speak the language of liberty and limited government need apply.

THE DENVER POST

July 27, 2009

guest commentary

Global warming worriers need to go nuclear

By John Dendahl

Sen. Mark Udall claims he's worried about global warming. He wants human production of carbon dioxide radically reduced. Ditto his wife, Maggie Fox, who runs Alliance for Climate Protection, founded by Al Gore with money from his global warming horror flick.

Here we have an inside-outside Udall family partnership working the Senate for votes for the ruinous cap-and-trade legislation PresidentObama wants.

I wrote to ask Udall's positions on carbon — regulate as a pollutant, cap emissions by statute and/or international treaty — the whole arsenal in this campaign against the economy and American sovereignty.

While awaiting a reply, I sent another note inquiring about nuclear energy, since that choice has several attractions. Among those are a half-century safety record unequaled by any major industry in history, zero carbon emissions, low operating expenses, no dependence on bad guys for fuel — and continuous output 2 4/7.

Udall's reply is boilerplate that any clerk could have sent back to me by return mail, rather than taking six weeks. As members of Congress have claimed ever since the Arab oil embargo in 1974, Udall wants a "comprehensive energy plan." In addition to generous portions of New Energy Economy fantasy, Udall would include "responsible onshore and offshore drilling for oil and natural gas . . . [and] safely expanding nuclear power."

The devil's in the caveats. What offshore drilling would Udall consider "responsible"? What does "safely" mean in the context of expanding industrial safety's crème de la crème?

This apple didn't fall far from the tree. Read on.

Preserving the myth that radioactive waste cannot be safely disposed has been a major goal of organized "environmentalists" for decades. When the federal government nearly 40 years ago commenced study of a geologic repository in southern New Mexico's bedded salt, Big Enviro was there to say no. Nonetheless, the study progressed and the proposed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was supported well by New Mexico's 1970s congressional delegation. Then, in 1982, Santa Fe elected Democrat Bill Richardson to the U.S. House.

Santa Fe is about 300 "crow-flight" miles from WIPP, but only about 30 from Los Alamos, where waste destined for WIPP — like that from Denver's Rocky Flats — had been in temporary storage for up to 40 years. Despite his district's need for WIPP, Richardson quickly became a strident opponent, in puzzling contrast to strong support from WIPP's neighbors and their representative in the House.

Naturally, Richardson hid behind public safety. Only slightly smirking, he could tell a reporter, "I'm for WIPP — as long as it's 100 percent safe." Since there's no such thing as "100 percent safe," the statement was a straight-out lie to cover Richardson's pandering to Big Enviro.

As the battles wore on, Udall's father, Morris Udall, D-Ariz., then chairman of the House Interior Committee, gave Richardson a veto over public lands legislation needed for WIPP. The congressional foot-dragging effected by Richardson and Udall Père probably delayed WIPP by five years, added hundreds of millions to its cost, and increased public safety not one iota.

Now cut to the present. WIPP operations commenced in 1999, ironically while Richardson was Bill Clinton's secretary of energy. Its fine safety record is consistent with the industry's, for both its construction and operations.

Surprise! Radioactive waste can be safely transported and disposed.

Democratic U.S. senators from Colorado have a poor record on energy. Former Sen. Tim Wirth, who now sits at Ted Turner's United Nations Foundation, said in 1997, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right things in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." And just what would those right things be? World government, maybe?

When Wirth, Udall, Gore and the rest of the global warming crowd become true advocates of super-safe, non-carbon-emitting, unmatchably reliable nuclear power, I'll stop dismissing them as liars very likely covering a hidden agenda.

John Dendahl, a Rocky Mountain Foundation senior fellow, is a retired business executive. He resides in Littleton.

As a fan of Tom Tancredo, I find it very disappointing to hear him advocating for the legalization of drugs. One expects this kind of thing from liberals but when a conservative starts promoting government approval and regulation of dangerous substances, something is very wrong. In the words of former Senator Patrick Moynihan, by attempting to “define deviancy down” Tancredo may indeed be committing political suicide, and, while that would be regrettable, it wouldn’t compare to the negative consequences such a foolish policy would have on our society.

Certainly, the so-called war against drugs has not been overly successful. While hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on arresting and incarcerating drug dealers and users every year, the demand seems to continue to rise—along with the influence of criminal groups like the Mexican drug cartels. So, why not save that money and allow government to tax and make a profit from the drug trade by legalizing it, like alcohol?

In the first place, while government surely spends a lot of money on drug crimes, I’m not sure such efforts could truly be characterized as a concerted “war on drugs.” Rather than a war, the effort against drugs in the U.S. is more like a disjointed, uncoordinated, hit-or-miss endeavor run by the Keystone Cops. In fact, since Bill Bennett was drug czar under George H.W Bush, I can’t recall a serious attempt being made by the federal government in this arena. While every president since then has had a drug czar, does anyone believe a strong anti-drug policy was pursued by “I didn’t inhale” Bill Clinton? George Bush was obviously preoccupied by the war in Iraq, and does anyone think that fighting drugs is one of Obama’s priorities? In short, there hasn’t been a serious effort to fight drugs in this country for over 20 years, so despite the money being spent it’s a misnomer to call it a “war.” Instead of throwing in the towel on this non-war, perhaps Mr. Tancredo should advocate for a true national engagement on this issue.

The social cost of legalizing drugs on our society would also be immense—and likely end up costing us even more than it is now—and not just in dollars. Whatever the government legalizes receives de facto moral approval. It sends the message, as with abortion, that it is ethically okay, which only serves to encourage the practice. Before abortion was legalized in this country, abortions ranged in the thousands. Afterward, it averaged over a million a year. Legalizing drugs would have the same effect. Instead of millions, it’s likely that tens of millions would become users. Having smoked “weed” in my youth (a fact of which I am not proud), I know that it can have a very negative impact on an individual, distorting one’s thinking and creating a “dead-headed” outlook on life characterized by loopy passivity. Do we really want to have a nation full of lazy, empty-headed “stoners,” smoking grass and having no qualms about it? Another side effect of marijuana is a sense of paranoia that is heightened by the fact that it is illegal, which is a good thing. It’s an incentive to stop. Diminishing that sense of guilt and fear of being caught does nothing but encourage more drug use, which is another reason to oppose legalization.

Marijuana—as everyone who has used it knows—is a “gateway drug.” A seemingly innocuous (initially) way of getting high, it almost inevitably leads to greater drug use. Since all drugs have a diminishing return over time it takes more and more to get the same sense of euphoria, leading to smoking more and/ or seeking stronger weed. That quest usually doesn’t end with marijuana. It commonly leads to using things like hashish, peyote, ecstasy, crystal “meth” or cocaine, which in turn may lead to the use of hallucinogenics, like mescaline and LSD—and even heroin. The truth is, if we are going to legalize marijuana, we will ultimately have to do the same for all of these drugs. After all, the rationale will already be in place: just think of all the money the government can save/make! Along the way, we will continue to “define deviancy down” in our society, until virtually nothing is considered wrong anymore. Hey, if making drugs legal is good, what about prostitution?

Perhaps most disappointing about Tom Tancredo’s push (no pun intended) to legalize marijuana and other drugs is the immorality of the position, especially for a professing Christian. Unlike alcohol, which has food value and doesn’t necessarily cause drunkenness, drugs always impair one’s mind and distort one’s consciousness. That’s the only reason for using them. But they come at a high price, often impairing the user’s life, creating addicts who commit serious crimes to maintain their habit and destroying lives and families. While it doesn’t specifically mention drugs, the Bible condemns drunkenness and by extension all things that distort one’s ability to function with a clear mind and cause addiction. Such behavior is bad for the individual and unhealthy for society. Does Tom Tancredo really want to advocate for something so morally wrong and destructive to our nation? If so, his political future probably is over.

The man who rolled into The White House on a claim of being, among other things, a constitutional scholar is looking like anything but. More like a dictator.

This number represents millions of police hours spent to search for, arrest and follow-up administrative tasks (writing report, proper handling of evidence, seeking a warrant, going to court).  Since not every search results in finding marijuana, any official number of hours spent in the arrest of the 829,000 will be lower than the amount actually spent.  In the 1990s my colleagues in Mid-Michigan (Lansing area) reported searching an average of 15 vehicles in order to make one marijuana arrest.

As an officer prepares to search a vehicle, nearly always they will ask another officer to assist with the vehicle search.  This action draws the second officer out of their patrol district, thus if a 911 call goes out, they are out of service or at least further away from the scene of the emergency.  This lowers public safety. 

Whether a custodial arrest is made or the person is given a citation and released, most officers immediately return to the station to secure the marijuana in an evidence locker and write the report.  This officer is out of service and away from their patrol district.

The amount of time to arrest for felony sale or manufacture of marijuana will normally vastly surpass that of simple possession.  Those 90,000 arrests easily represent in excess of one million police hours.  To that total must be added the vast number of marijuana grow ops where the police spend hours, even days destroying acres of pots plants and no suspects are ever found and charged.

Public safety is reduced as marijuana is grown in national parks and forests.  Hikers and hunters have been threatened, even killed.  Collateral damage is also done to ecosystems as a result of the use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.  Pollution to nearby streams and posing a threat of a wildfire are added problems. 

National public safety is threatened as terrorists fund their operations with money earned from the sale of marijuana and its cousin hashish.  Federal police, DEA and FBI assets spend considerable amounts of time searching for and arresting those engaged in large scale marijuana operations, such as medical dispensaries in California, etc.  These are hours lost to searching for and arresting terrorists and other national security threats.

Any jail or prison space taken up for a violation of marijuana law is one less that could be occupied by someone convicted of a non-consensual crime like DUI, assault, rape, child porn, etc.

Mexico's ambassador to the United States has now picked up as a red herring an Obama administration drumbeat about US-origin firearms in the hands of his country's drug cartels. The drum major and majorette, Attorney General Eic Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have famously suggested that the cartels' armories can be weakened by more gun control in Mexico's neighbor to the north, the United States.