August 7, 2014 6:00 p.m. @ Adams County Fairgrounds and Regional Park, Pavilion A (just east and after the Waymire Dome), 9755 Henderson Rd., Brighton, CO
Presented by The Reagan Club of Colorado
This was the theme at the 2014 Western Conservative Summit, held in Denver on July 18 thru July 20th and sponsored by the Centennial Institute, the Colorado Christian University’s Think Tank.
If you got to attend the “Summit” . . . you know that the theme could mean many things, but the primary meaning was that “America’s Best Days are the vision and mission fueling the enthusiasm of today’s conservatives Americans.”
The Reagan Club of Colorado was there . . . and one of the consistently recurring ideas was the values, ideals and leadership of Ronald W. Reagan. Our 40th President passed away 10 years ago; and has been out of office for 28 years . . . why the perennial memories and enduring admiration for President Reagan?
The Western Conservative Summit featured Reagan in publicizing the event . . . showing President Reagan from his 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing”. . .
Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, there is a price we will not pay. There is a point beyond which they must not advance.
There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty. You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
In the book “11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative”, Dr. Paul Kengor listed the foundation of Ronald Reagan’s life and presidency. One of them was “Belief In The Individual”
The importance of the individual to the history and success of our great land is undeniable – in spite of the rhetoric of the progressives and anti-American Tradition types.
The Reagan Club of Colorado is a group of and from the “grassroots” – and is committed to supporting the informing, involving and strengthening the individual and the families and communities in which they live and love.
To that aim – The Reagan Club of Colorado is throwing a BBQ that will focus on what makes America Her Best . . . faith, family and friends . . . for conservative voters of Adams County and the surrounding area.
The event will be a catered event – with “gourmet treatment” of those classic BBQ favorites . . . Grilled
Hamburgers and Hot Dogs. This includes toppings and side dishes that will delight the taste buds – while you share an enjoyable evening with other conservatives.
We are offering a substantial discount for tickets – if you pay online (http://www.reaganclubco.com/august-7th-meeting-tickets/) before August 5th at midnight.
The regular prices are $20.00 for Members and $25.00 for Non-Members . . . BUT – prepay online and the deal is . . .
$15.00 for Members – who can bring a guest for $5.00 . . . that’s $20.00 for two.
$20.00 for Non-Members – who also can bring a guest for just $5.00.
We’ll see you Thursday night, August 7th!
Join the Reagan Club for dinner and the 1940 movie “Knute Rockne: All American” starring Ronald Reagan on the eve of America’s 238th birthday. Buffet meal included with popcorn and a Cash Bar.
Doors open at 5:30pm, greeting, prayer & the Pledge of Allegiance begins at 6:00pm, dinner served at 6:15pm, grab a bag of popcorn to munch on as we watch The Gipper at 7:00pm, and finish up the night with dessert at 8:40pm and head home at 9:00pm.
We’re meeting in central Denver at CADA (Colorado Auto Dealers Association), 290 East Speer Blvd, Denver, CO, 80203. Admission is $20 for members and $25 for non-members. You can buy your tickets on our web site: http://www.reaganclubco.com/meeting-dues/ or pay at the door.
“I’ve decided to take up coaching as my life work,” Knute Rockne says. Coach he does, revolutionizing football with his strategies, winning close to 90 percent of his games, and helping establish the University of Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish as a gridiron powerhouse. But victories alone do not mean success to Rockne. He wants to shape his players into responsible and honorable men. This famed sports biopic combines a passion for the game (and footage of actual Notre Dame contests) with two superb performances: Pat O’Brien in the title role and Ronald Reagan as George Gipp, the gifted but doomed halfback whose deathbed plea is “win just one for the Gipper.” The line remains one of cinema’s most memorable. And for the rest of his life, Reagan would often be called the Gipper.
CADA is located on the Southwest corner of Grant and Speer Blvd; the two-story ivory colored building that looks like a small mansion. Parking is available on the south side of the building or on the street.
Directions from I-25 North:
Take I-25 south to the Speer Blvd. South exit. Continue on Speer Blvd. South going east. You will take Speer Blvd Southeast to Grant Street and make a right on Grant. CADA is located on the southwest corner of Grant and Speer. (While traveling east on Speer you will pass through a short tunnel, Grant is the first street right after you exit the tunnel; begin moving over the right-hand lane as quickly as possible after you exit the tunnel)
Directions from I-25 South:
Take I-25 south to the Broadway/Lincoln Ave. exit. Go north on Lincoln to Speer Blvd. Make a right on 4th Street, and turn left into the parking lot BEFORE you reach Grant Street (you will see the Red Cross trucks in the parking lot). The CADA Building will be to your left on the North side of the parking lot. CADA is located on the southwest corner of Grant and Speer.
Directions from 6th avenue:
Take 6th Avenue East to Speer Blvd. Go right on Speer Blvd. Make a right on Grant Street. (Grant is about 2 blocks up).
After initially supporting incumbent Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.), through the first quarter of this year, oil and natural gas companies have since overwhelmingly supported his challenger, Rep. Cory Gardner (R., Colo.), over Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall was among this election cycle’s top recipients of oil and gas money through March, having received $201,550 from the sector, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics up to March. At that time, Mr. Gardner, who announced at the end of February his intent to challenge Mr. Udall after getting three other GOP candidates to bow out of a potentially bruising Republican primary, had received just $79,300 from the oil and gas industry for his House re-election bid.
Since Mr. Gardner entered the Senate race, the oil and gas industry has been pouring money into Mr. Gardner’s campaign. Between the first and second quarters, the industry gave $223,600 to Mr. Gardner and just $41,460 to Mr. Udall, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Continue reading
Watch: The Western Conservative Summit Live Stream: Some of the biggest names in the conservative movement — … http://bit.ly/1rcp30C
Some of the biggest names in the conservative movement — including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Dr. Ben Carson — will speak in Denver this weekend for the Western Conservative Summit.
The annual event comes as President Barack Obama’s popularity is cratering and the scandals attached to his administration are only getting worse.
Breitbart News will livestream the three-day conference, which also feature our own Ben Shapiro, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).
Democrats were for suing the president before they were against it.
In the tiny House Rules Committee room in Congress on Wednesday, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter let roll her grievances against House Republicans’ lawsuit against Barack Obama. It took a lot of coffee.
The suit, which sues the president for unilaterally changing a core provision of ObamaCare, is a “political stunt,” declared Ms. Slaughter. Republicans have “timed” it to “peak . . . right as the midterm elections are happening,” said the ranking Rules member. Having failed to stop ObamaCare, they have chosen to “run to the judicial branch.” And, she lectured, a “lawsuit against the president brought by half of the Congress” is “certainly” not the “correct way to resolve” a “political dispute.”
As for the legal merits, well! Ms. Slaughter feted her witness, lawyer Walter Dellinger, praising his work on Raines v. Byrd , a 1997 case in which the Supreme Court found members of Congress do not have automatic standing to sue. The courts, she insisted, had no business settling such disputes. A lawsuit against the president, she declared, “is preposterous.”
About the only thing Ms. Slaughter didn’t do in five hours was offer House Speaker John Boehner her litigation notes. For it seems to have slipped Ms. Slaughter’s mind—and the press’s attention—that a mere eight years ago she was a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats against George W. Bush. The year was 2006, just as Democrats were, uh, peaking in their campaign to take back the House.
Democrats were sore that they’d lost a fight over a budget bill that made cuts to Medicaid and student loans. They dredged up a technical mistake—a tiny difference between the House and Senate version of the bill. Michigan Democrat John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, decided to (how did Ms. Slaughter put it?) file a lawsuit against the president brought by half of the Congress. He was joined as a plaintiff by nearly every other then-ranking Democratic member and titan in the House— Charles Rangel, John Dingell, George Miller, Collin Peterson, Bennie Thompson, Barney Frank, Pete Stark, James Oberstar and Ms. Slaughter herself.
Rep. Louise Slaughter at Wednesday’s House Rules Committee hearing. Win McNamee/Getty Images
In an April 2006 Huffington Post piece titled “Taking the President to Court,” Mr. Conyers explained that he was “alarmed by the erosion of our constitutional form of government,” and by a president who “shrugged” about “the law.” After “consulting with some of the foremost constitutional experts in the nation,” he had determined that there was “one group of people” who were “injured” by Mr. Bush’s lack of respect for “checks and balances”: Congress. So he was “going”—or as Ms. Slaughter might put it, “running”—”to court.” Continue reading
The state of Colorado’s official website is still echoing the president’s infamous “If you like your plan, you can keep it” line. The Democratic selling point came under fire last year when millions of health-insurance customers saw their existing plans canceled in order to comply with new Obamacare regulations.
Under the FAQ page on its section on health-care, the website claims residents who like their current health-care plan will not lose it under the law.
This is surely news to the quarter of a million Coloradans who saw their plans canceled due to the law — that number was recoreded by the state’s own Division of Insurance. The president’s 2009 claim gained such notoriety during last year’s launch of the exchanges that PolitiFact rated the comment its “Lie of The Year.” Continue reading
Looking back, I am very lucky I wasn’t fired from my first job as a lawyer.
The year was 1991, the position was staff attorney in the Georgia Attorney General’s Office, and the issue was a same-sex marriage. A good friend and fellow law clerk had referred to herself as engaged and listed her female partner as her soon-to-be spouse on the office’s standard human resource’s forms. Her job offer was withdrawn.
I will never forget sitting across the desk from the attorney general himself, demanding an explanation of his legal position. I learned an important life lesson from that experience, though probably not the one my new boss thought he taught me.
I learned that a distinction must be drawn between an elected office and the person who holds it.
The office holder’s role is not to impose his agenda on the people he represents, but instead to explore avenues for change that respect the legal process and differing opinions. Justice may come too slowly for some, but the reward of a final outcome grounded in the rule of law is worth the patience and effort.
As the state’s chief legal officer, Colorado’s attorney general swears to uphold and defend the state’s laws – regardless of personal beliefs.
Carrying out this duty is not always easy. As an example, in recent months the Attorney General’s Office has received criticism from both ends of the political spectrum for its handling of two sets of cases: one involving a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple and another brought by same-sex couples seeking the right to marry.
In the first instance, the attorney general is accused of prioritizing same-sex marriage over a business owner’s religious liberty. In the second, he is accused of denying same-sex couples a proposed fundamental right to marry.
While in many ways philosophically opposed, the advocates in both two cases argue that the state is violating the constitution by enforcing unjust laws. These arguments are seriously made and the legal debate about them is crucial.
But some observers go a step further – they claim the Attorney General’s Office should effectively veto the laws in question by refusing to defend them in court. This is a dangerous idea.
Under our legal system of checks and balances, a law that is considered unjust can be rescinded in two ways: either the people or their elected representatives can vote to repeal it, or they can convince a court to declare it invalid.
Both processes involve careful thought, debate, and participation from all sides. Not everyone will like the result, but in our democratic process, everyone can know they had an opportunity to advocate their position.
Killing a law by declining to defend it bears none of these hallmarks. It should be no surprise that when some attorneys general choose this course, our system suffers for it. For example, had California’s attorney general defended her state’s marriage law, the U.S. Supreme Court could have resolved the constitutional status of same-sex marriage a year ago.
Instead, she essentially vetoed the law through her inaction, preventing the Supreme Court from reaching the substantive question.
The issue of same-sex marriage divides very good people with strongly held opinions.
Public debates can be contentious and polarizing.
Indeed, it is more difficult to defend laws in the eye of this public policy storm than it is to succumb to personal and political goals.
However, unlike my opponent in the race for attorney general, I do not confuse my policy preferences with my duty to defend laws with which I may disagree. When I chose to run for attorney general, I committed to set aside my opinions of what the law should be in favor of a higher legal system that recognizes the pivotal role of voters and the courts.
Efforts to change the law on same-sex marriage are now moving rapidly but are not yet settled, and until they are, the attorney general has a duty to play his part and defend current Colorado law.
Simply put, if our attorney general gets to pick and choose which laws to defend and which to disregard, whatever the justification, then we no longer are a nation of laws but a land of selective justice.
Cynthia Coffman is the Republican candidate for attorney general in Colorado. She serves as deputy attorney general of Colorado.