First a supporter said she’d given him $300 in cash because he said he was behind on his mortgage.  He said it was a campaign contribution, but accepting more than $100 in cash for a campaign is illegal in Colorado, plus the woman’s gift doesn’t show up in Maes’ contribution reports with the Secretary of  State.  Big oops.

Now we find he apparently embellished about a job he had with the Liberal, Kansas Police Department.  He had claimed to have worked undercover for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.  The Denver Post reported the story today, and it frankly looks like Maes has trouble telling the truth at times.

Democrat John Hickenlooper is the front runner according to the latest Rasmussen poll, but voters don’t seem excited about him, Maes or Tancredo.  Today former Senator Hank Brown (R) withdrew his support for Maes, saying he’ll look for someone else.

Friday is the drop dead date.  That’s the day the ballots must be finalized.  So either Maes must drop out, to be replaced by someone chosen by the GOP vacancy committee, or Hickenlooper wins–or something totally unprecedented happens.  Maybe a write-in race.

Facebook and Twitter offer a kind of headline news, which is fed by many mainstream media sources.  But complex concepts sent out in chunks not much bigger than a headline can’t convey much.  So while people think they’re being informed they’re really getting only a hint of the news, like eating the foam from the top of a root beer float.  They talk amongst themselves and believe they’re somewhat informed, but the knowledge is pretty thin.

Generally they realize something is wrong in our country, they just don’t know why.  They know the economy is bad, they know the housing market went in the tank, they know the schools aren’t very good.  Some are angry, some are confused, some are just focused on getting by.

There is a group that tries to be informed.  They are the ones driving the anger with elected officials and I think it spills over to the ones who aren’t paying that much attention.

That’s how, I think, we get rather odd results from a Pew survey which bothered the White House more than a little.

President Barack Obama is a Christian who prays daily, a White House official said Thursday, trying to tamp down growing doubts about the president’s religion.

A new poll showed that nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, believe Obama is Muslim. That was up from 11 percent who said so in March 2009. The survey also showed that just 34 percent said Obama is Christian, down from 48 percent who said so last year. The largest share of people, 43 percent, said they don’t know his religion.

It isn’t surprising that 43 percent don’t know the President’s religion.  They just want him to get the government working again.

What fascinated me was the big jump in the number of people who believe he’s Muslim.  It went from 11 percent last year to 18 percent this year.  And keep in mind this survey was done before he said the Muslims have a right to build a mosque near ground zero in New York.

What changed their minds?  I can’t figure it out, but the White House is right to be worried.  It seems (and this is a guess) the guy they picked in anger to replace George W just isn’t who they thought he was.

I was against the GM bail out, I’m disgusted with the health care law and I’m sick of him apologizing to the rest of the world for America being America.

But I love candid speech, whether I agree or not.  And this week President Obama hit the nail on the head on the proposed mosque near ground zero in New York.

He said:

“as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.”

And then:

“This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”

He’s exactly right.  Protection of Muslim rights amounts to protection of my rights as a Christian.  He’ll take a lot of heat over that stance, but I can’t see any holes in his logic.

I don’t like the idea of a mosque anywhere near the site of the World Trade Center, but as long as they follow all the rules, just like any other church, they have every right to build their building.

Is it smart?  Absolutely not.  Proceeding with this plan will bring lots of rancor down upon the Muslim religion.  Can you imagine neo Nazis building a “cultural center” across the street from Auschwitz?  But that’s not the point.  Under our laws, which protect the rights of people, even the misguided ones, we can’t decide this church building is okay, while this mosque isn’t.  And that’s what makes this country different from most others in the world.

And why did the President weigh in?  I have no idea.  It’s a distraction and one that won’t serve him at all.  It does show that he’s out of touch with New Yorkers on the pain and anguish that still remains over the attacks of 2001.  I can’t see the upside.  He’s looking more like Jimmy Carter all the time.

Kind of like Ross Perot did back in 1992.

Rasmussen did a poll a couple of days ago that predicts what will happen now that Tancredo is in the race.  Is shows John Hickenlooper with 42 percent of the vote, Dan Maes with 27 and Tancredo with 24.  With Scott McInnis in the mix, the predictions are similar.  Tancredo takes about a third of the Republican vote, enough to make Hickenlooper the winner.

So just like 18 years ago it looks like this conservative is the Dems best weapon.  Bill Clinton gained the White House with 43 percent of the vote.

This is fascinating.  I can’t believe Tancredo wants to help Hickenlooper.  So is this just a poker game?  Does he somehow believe that after Tuesday’s primary McInnis or Maes will just drop out?  He seems like a guy that might run just because he believes it’s the right thing to do — win or lose.  But he certainly knows that kind of stubbornness turns off voters and hurts his (conservative) cause.

It reminds me of a bit in the classic movie “Blazing Saddles.”  A man with a gun commands something like  “nobody move or I’ll shoot him.”  But the man with the gun is pointing the barrel at his own head.  I wonder if Tancredo has ever seen that movie.

Editor’s note (8/15/10):

Within days of writing the above post, Maes beat McInnis and then Freda Poundstone, a well-known conservative lobbyist, said she soured on Maes because he isn’t what he claims.  She recounted giving $300 in cash because he needed it to pay his mortgage.  Maes says it was a political donation, not a personal gift.  But it’s illegal to give a politician more than $100 in cash (and Poundstone knows this).  And the “contribution” doesn’t show up in Maes records.

Who’s lying?  I just don’t know.

Tancredo said this week, this kind of behavior is why he joined the race.

Who will I vote for in November for governor?  I have no idea.  Hopefully we’ll all have more information by then.

If my finger is on the pulse of the voters (and it may not be) I think Buck wins the nomination.

Here’s why:

• In what I believe is a “throw the bums out” mentality, Norton is more of an insider than Buck.
• Norton went negative first, with a comment about Buck “not being man enough” to do something.  This ticks off quite a few men and even some women.  Why go there?  Why does a woman attack a man’s manhood in a political race?

He responded with an off the cuff remark that was equally stupid.  When someone asked “Why should I vote for you?” he responded with “because I don’t wear high heels.”  This probably showed his irritation with the “manhood” ad.  But why not really answer the question.  No one is going to vote for someone based on their shoe preference.  He had an opportunity to talk about his beliefs and instead opted for a cheap shot.  Though I’m sure if we were to see the whole tape, but eventually did get around to his beliefs.

The current ad from Norton centers on the “high heels” comment, as if she has nothing to say about herself.

Buck’s current ad paints Norton as a RINO (Republican in name only) who is really a big spender and GOP insider.  These ads are probably the last ones that will have an impact as we approach the primary on August 10.

So, I’m predicting Buck wins.

Shirley Sherrod resigned after a carefully edited video surfaced from decades ago in which she made what appeared to be a racist statement.  She’s black and was relating a story about a white farmer.  The NAACP and the White House and the head of the USDA reacted quickly, without, it appears even letting her tell her side of the story.  The white farmer, it turns out, credits Sherrod with saving his farm.  I’m no expert on these events, but it is apparent this was made into, and treated as a racist episode, even if it wasn’t.

Now the NAACP says it was misled, and the Ag Dept. is considering asking her to take her job  back.  The White House has scrambled for cover, looking foolish and inept.  It’s worse for President Obama because of his “stupid” comment about a white police officer and a black friend last year which resulted in an equally silly “beer summit,” and of course because the President wanted to be “post racial” in his administration.  He has failed at this, making the complex issue of race seem even more daunting than even I thought it could be.  It’s as if he has secret beliefs about race that he has never shared with us.

Politico has a poignant article on the subject, including this excerpt:

Though Obama’s candidacy was widely hailed as a new day for race in America, there were always dissenters, and the Sherrod episode seems to suggest the skeptics had a point. On the right, writer Ramesh Ponnuru warned against freighting Obama with too much racial baggage: “What if Obama becomes our first black president, and he comes to be seen as a failure in office?” he asked, calling the notion that voting for Obama would improve race relations “a risky gamble.”

It was a thoughtful article with a Phoenix dateline that made these key points:

• The Arizona immigration enforcement law is similar to federal immigration law
• Federal immigration officials want to be able to selectively enforce the law

Most shocking was this line:

The federal government is worried that other states will follow Arizona’s lead, overwhelming federal agencies with non-criminal illegal immigrants who will cost the government millions to deport.

What the heck is a non-criminal illegal immigrant?  Isn’t it illegal to be in our country illegally?  The idea of selective enforcement of laws is a scary thing, especially when we’re talking about more than 10 million people.  But that’s what the federal government has been doing for years.

In fact, it is an accepted defense in criminal cases.

In a claim of selective prosecution, a defendant essentially argues that it is irrelevant whether they are guilty of violating a law, but that the fact of being prosecuted is based upon forbidden reasons. Such a claim might, for example, entail an argument that persons of different age, race, religion, or gender, were engaged in the same illegal actions for which the defendant is being tried and were not prosecuted, and that the defendant is only being prosecuted because of a bias. In the US, this defense is based upon the 14th Amendment, which requires that “nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

While this defense is rarely successful, it does raise a fascinating prospect.  Hopefully a non-citizen would not be able to claim his or her rights under the 14th Amendment, but in light of recent decisions and rulings, it sure seems possible.

Let me once again say that I love Mexico and its people.  I fully understand why they want to come here.  I also see the drain it puts on local and state governments, and citizens, when an illegal uses schools, hospitals and even simple infrastructure that is funded by others.   I can also see why there is anger from Mexicans and Hispanics.  Arizona welcomed these people when they needed cheap labor and most people were willing to wink at the border crossing crime if it saved them money.  But in 1996 there were an estimated 5 million illegals in our country, now there are 12 million (estimated).  Because of an increase in illegal border crossings and a weak economy Arizona felt it was time to act.  The change in “rules” seems unfair to them.  I understand.  But selective enforcement of the law is not the answer.

That means 9 supposedly super-bright people read this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And four of them decided the right to keep and bear arms could be infringed.  How does that happen?

You could gather 9 high school grads off the street and ask them what that sentence means and if they understood arms means guns and infringed means violated, all of them would says that the intent of that sentence was to make it clear to everyone that Americans have a right to have guns.

But in the 2008 dissent Justice Stevens starts out trying to figure out under what circumstance the right to keep and carry guns can be limited under the Constitution.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case.

The “rob a bank” comment above is simply absurd and I would think get you laughed out of any debate on the issue, even at a cocktail party.  Of course the 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to use a gun to rob a bank.

He then moves immediately to “purpose.”  For what purpose should a person be able to keep and bear arms?  Well, the Amendment doesn’t talk about purpose it just says we have the right to keep and bear arms.

Try as they might, those four Justices couldn’t really come up with much of an argument for why the 2nd Amendment doesn’t really mean what it says.  The scary thing is that they feel the need to try.

You can read the opinions online from that 2008 case and judge for yourself.  I believe the courts are there to interpret the intent of the law, but I don’t believe they should try to come up with ways to make it seem like the law (or Constitution) really says something they want it to say.

It is possible this is a very clever way to shut down businesses that employ illegals.

More likely, this is a case of a government official deciding some laws are good and some are bad, so we’ll just enforce the ones we like.  We can even wink at the problem by claiming undocumented is different than illegal.  This is the kind of behavior that is fueling the TEA Party as well as the general anger and distrust of government that is rumbling just under the surface in America.

But it does seem a little naive.  If you catch a business hiring illegals and force that business to pay the minimum wage, they’ll either stop hiring illegals and hire legals, or they’ll go out of business.  I don’t think that was Hilda’s goal.

We’ll take care of you.  We’ll tell you what to eat, what to do, and eventually what to think.  For your own good.

But I hoped and continue to hope I was wrong.  But here’s more evidence I was right.  Last week President Obama signed an executive order establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.

As in dog training, we will be rewarded for good behavior and punished for bad.  Eventually we’ll learn to think the “right way” and become healthier and happier.  Just like in 1984.

The executive order requires the council to “provide coordination…with respect to prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States.”

Also government must develop a “health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans” and also must “carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the president.”

It will “set specific goals and objectives for improving the health of the United States” and “establish specific and measurable actions and timelines to carry out the strategy.”

Read this closely:

(c) provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition;

And this:

(c) contains a list of national priorities on health promotion and disease prevention to address lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States;

Can you say Calorie Cops?  Excuse me sir, I need to see your license, registration and exercise log for the past month.

And now we’ve expanded health to include everything from drug addition to domestic violence.  Shouldn’t ADHD be in there, and driving SUV’s and using too much electricity?  And how about those who get upset with the government?  That can’t be healthy.

I just flashed back to a memorable line uttered by Mr. Sir in the movie “Holes.”

Punishment and ree-ward.  Punishment and ree-ward.  Every time they see me a little chill goes up their spine.

Only that was funny.  This isn’t.