Liberty on the Rocks™ Denver

A Grassroots Freedom Movement

Welcome To Our Site...

Liberty on the Rocks Denver Chapter: A splendid mix of grass roots activism, libations, and good conversation. We are a group of citizens who endeavor to limit the reach of government into our personal lives, to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Join us for a meeting of the minds to discuss ways we can further our cause of liberty.

  • .: Events Calendar :.

    February 2010
    M T W T F S S
    « Jan    
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
  • New Blog

    Posted By ari on February 8, 2010

    Please see the new blog at http://blog.ariarmstrong.com/.

    I'll use this FreeColorado.com URL to link to the new and archival material, display my Twitter feed and (hopefully) my new blog's RSS feed, and so on.

    I demand you read this!

    Posted By David K. Williams, Jr. on February 7, 2010

    There is more than one problem with Mark Hillman's Denver Post column published yesterday. (Trial Lawyer Hypocrisy Act.)

    One, however, really jumps out. Twice he writes how plaintiff attorneys can "demand up to 40 percent" of the eventual recovery.

    How does that "demand" work?

    Circle K can "demand" consumers spend $5.00 for a "fun size" Snickers. So what? Ain't nobody gonna be meeting that demand.

    I can "demand" Sandra Bullock's appearance at dinner. That demand ain't gonna be met either.

    People that have been injured by the someone else's negligence have a wide selection of attorneys from which to choose to represent them. Almost none will hire an attorney who "demands" 40 percent. It is called a "free market," something Republicans usually extol the virtues of.

    Couldn’t we get a few more levels of government involved?

    Posted By David K. Williams, Jr. on February 6, 2010

    Today's Denver Post declares in a broad headline


    The article by Mike McPhee states that "the announcement of a $304 million federal loan Friday gave the green light to the redevelopment of Union Station... ."

    Further, "the loan (is) guaranteed by the City and County of Denver."

    This means that one level of government, the feds, are going to give your money to another level of government, the Regional Transportation District, and that another level of government, the City and County of Denver, has guaranteed with your money the loan of your money to you.

    All of this for a project no private investor would touch.

    Of course, every transaction between each level of government has a cost. You, of course, pay for that, too.

    Jon Stewart vs. O’Reilly

    Posted By amanda on February 5, 2010

    This past week, Fox News viewers were given the opportunity to watch Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly go at it.  I couldn’t bring myself to watch the entire episode, as it wasn’t more than five minutes into it that I was already fed up with both of them.  I was, shall we say, dismayed with Jon for making ridiculous claims, and with Bill for saying nothing to correct him.

    When discussing the topic of compromise, Jon lambasted the Republicans for not appreciating Obama’s efforts when it came to tax cuts.  First he brought up the president’s stimulus plan, and how a third of it was in tax cuts.  He then went on to say he had expected the Republicans to applaud during the State of the Union when Obama mentioned that he had cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  He clearly assumes that they stayed seated because it was Obama up there, never mind if he was cutting taxes.  The fact is, he may be right.  I believe many of them would have stood up had it been John McCain announcing the same.  Either way, it’s ridiculous to think that anyone should have stood up to clap for these so-called “tax cuts”.

    What many realized back in 2008 was that Obama’s claim that he would be cutting taxes for almost all Americans was just another way of saying “I’m going to spend, spend, spend”.  As this Wall Street Journal article points out, some have a different idea of what a tax cut is.  The way they see it, “…a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.”"  I mean, how on earth can anyone say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans, when there aren’t even that many who pay taxes?  An article by CBS News brings up a study which finds only 43% of individuals pay taxes.  So if taxes are “cut” for 95%, what does that mean? Could it be that the so-called tax “cuts” are actually subsidies to those who don’t pay taxes?

    No, Jon.  The Republicans should not have stood up and applauded Barack, nor should they have applauded if it was McCain doing something similar.  Rather than changing the subject, Bill should have discussed this issue further, and made sure it was understood by the audience (which most likely was made up of a good number of Democrats supporting Jon) that these so-called “tax cuts” were nothing of the sort.

    Hey, let’s put these guys in charge of EVEN MORE healthcare

    Posted By David K. Williams, Jr. on February 4, 2010

    According to today's edition of the Denver Post:

    A Montbello mother says her 9-year-old son's death from severe asthma could have been prevented had Denver Human Services resolved problems with his Medicaid pharmacy benefits.

    Zuton Lucero said she called Human Services every three days for months last year when she was suddenly unable to get prescription drugs for her son, Zumante.

    The boy's health deteriorated without the medication, his doctor said, and he died at Children's Hospital in July after losing consciousness at his house after an attack.

    "I don't want anyone else to be sitting where I'm sitting," Lucero said.

    Unfortunately, "compassionate" progressives want us ALL to be sitting there, Ms. Lucero.

    They want the same government run system that neglected your little boy to take care of all of us.

    And somehow those of us that don't believe the government is the answer to all problems are the "callous" and "uncaring" ones.

    See "The human system fell down" in today's paper.


    We are frogs in a pot of water. Is it getting warmer in here?

    Posted By David K. Williams, Jr. on February 4, 2010


    This is part one of 3. At the end of each clip, you can click to see the next one.

    I ask you to watch all three parts. His comparison to the frog in the pot is 100% accurate.

    I ask you to fight the expansion of state power.

    And notice how hot the water is getting, before it is too late.

    Hickenlooper may be “class clown,” but he is also “most likely to succeed.”

    Posted By David K. Williams, Jr. on February 4, 2010

    The Colorado GOP knows it has uphill battle on its hands in the 2010 race for governor.

    GOP leadership has acknowledged that Democratic candidate John Hickenlooper is a likable fellow and their candidate Scott McInnis is .... well..... not. (See Dick Wadhams warns Republicans Scott McInnis can’t beat John Hickenlooper in a personality contest).

    In a press release today, Colorado GOP chairman Wadhams says "This is not an election for class clown, it is an election for Governor of Colorado."

    This is a doomed strategy. It will backfire.

    Continuing the "class clown" analogy, making fun of the popular guy does not make one more popular. Generally speaking, the one making fun of the popular guy comes across as a jerk. Or, in today's vernacular, a "hater."

    McInnis does not need help in that regard.

    Even those that don't particularly care for the class clown will feel some sympathy for him as the jerk keeps calling him names. The official GOP name for Hickenlooper in almost all of its press releases is "Hickenritter," a reference to the sitting Democratic governor, Bill Ritter.

    While the GOP may think Hickenlooper is the "class clown," it is the GOP itself acting like petulant school boys.

    If the Colorado GOP does not grow up, the Colorado governor race might be one of the few elections the Dems win in 2010.

    Think they'll be hatin' it then?




    Unused scratch pads get jealous

    Posted By David K. Williams, Jr. on February 3, 2010

    Yesterday's Denver Post contained the headline:

    “Countries sign deal to reduce emissions”

    The story notes that “the accord is not legally binding. It has no enforcement provision….”

    Allow BlueCarp the liberty of translating this story. The headline would be more accurate if it proclaimed:

    “Dishonest, easily duped doodle on paper; proclaim moral superiority.”

    The story should then note that “true Conservationists decried the shameless waste of paper”

    Never take the first offer … ever.

    Posted By David K. Williams, Jr. on February 2, 2010

    On the most recent episode of 24 (the second greatest drama in television history after The Shield), an undercover agent, Renee Walker, is making a deal to buy some weapons grade plutonium from a former KGB official. Apparently, this plutonium is a necessary and hard to get ingredient for nuclear weapons. It is not cheap.

    He has the stuff. She knows he has it, but plays along as if she's just asking if he knows who might have it.

    He does not know that she knows this.

    He says he has to make some calls to see if he can find out who has it. He says it will take a $5 million payment just for him to make the calls because just asking around is very dangerous. He tells her if he can find the owner, $5 million is a pittance.

    She plays along, says she'll ask her buyer if he's willing to pay the $5 million, and she'll get back to the former KGB guy. The make believe buyer is Jack Bauer.

    Jack tells her that he can have the money wired to the KGB guys' account to facilitate the deal. The federal government is all good with this, since they are trying to keep New York City from being nuked.

    Here is my quibble: if a KGB terrorist says he needs $5 million, you do not say "okay, no problem.' That's not how negotiations work. KGB terrorists know this.

    You say, "sorry, my buyer isn't going to give you $5 million just to make some calls without a guarantee of some kind. You can either have a third party hold the money in escrow, or he'll pay you $1 million for your trouble, even if you come up with diddly squat. If you come through and we make the deal, you'll get your huge cut."

    I'm just sayin', ....

    if I were a former KGB agent with weapons grade plutonium to sell, and somebody said "OK" to my first demand without haggling, I'd immediately think I was dealing with an undercover agent and that person would be sharin' a room with some mutated fish at the bottom of the East River.

    Apparently, I have spent way too much time thinking about making a deal with former KGB officials.



    At Least Dan Maes Answered the Questions

    Posted By ari on February 2, 2010

    The following article originally was published February 1 by Grand Junction's Free Press.

    At least Dan Maes answered the questions

    by Linn and Ari Armstrong

    Recently the Supreme Court struck down part of the McCain-Feingold censorship law in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision is tragic because the Court only partially restored the First Amendment, and apparently four of the justices cannot comprehend the simple phrase, "Congress shall make no law..."

    Leftist critics of the ruling argue that, while a lone individual might have some rights to free speech, individuals do not have the right to freely associate to express themselves. Further, these critics claim, you have no firm right to spend your own money on expression.

    To grasp the left's hypocrisy on finances, just ask a critic of the ruling whether the right to get an abortion would be preserved if women and clinics were forbidden from spending money on abortions. (Eugene Volokh raised this point.)

    Regarding this case the left is perfectly consistent with its Marxist roots. Marx wrote, "The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

    In simpler terms, you are just too stupid to independently evaluate a film or ad funded by a corporation. You need the benevolent nannies of the left to help you think straight.

    Unfortunately, some people do everything they can to prove Marx right. They thoughtlessly buy junk just because the idiot box or their friends tell them to. They never read great books or otherwise develop their reasoning skills. They vote for candidates based on appearance, smooth talk, and hysterical smear campaigns against the other guy.

    However, trying to save people from their own stupidity only entrenches stupidity. People cannot choose wisely if they lack the capacity to choose badly. In terms of free speech, people must be free to say and believe stupid things, if we wish to preserve the right and ability to say and believe profundities.

    The law properly guards against fraudulent speech. You can't legally tell someone a used car has only ten thousand miles on it when it actually has a hundred thousand. Nor can you make up lies about a candidate. Established law already addresses such matters.

    Aside from libel, however, people should be free to say whatever they want about candidates (using their own resources), whenever they want, and with whomever they want. That is precisely what the First Amendment is all about.

    We can't blame bad government on advertisements. After all, smear campaigns work only if voters fail to critically judge them. It is you, the individual voter, who must carefully evaluate claims, do some background research, and seek the broader context. If you fail to do so, censorship laws will not save the republic but will only further erode its foundation.

    Let us make 2010 the year when candidates articulate their views on the issues and voters decide accordingly. Let us make this election about ideas, principles, and policies, not hair dye, cowboy hats, and vocal timbre.

    It is in this spirit that we introduced our Candidate Survey, found at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10. Unfortunately, as of our deadline, we had heard from only two candidates running for governor or U.S. Senate. Dan Maes, the Republican challenger to Scott McInnis, said he'd answer the survey and followed through on his word. We also heard from independent candidate Rich Hand. You can find their responses linked from the original survey.

    Though we originally contacted all the major-party candidates (or their representatives) for those offices by January 13, our initial correspondence did not make it to the right parties in the case of McInnis and Democratic top gun John Hickenlooper. While representatives of both candidates have now confirmed receipt of the survey, they have not committed to answering it. We encourage readers to ask these candidates to answer the survey.

    Maes is the underdog, and we disagree with a number of his views. Generally, though, we are impressed by his responsiveness, straight talk, sincerity, and hard work.

    Maes is a pretty solid fiscal conservative. He thinks the state should cut taxes and permit the traditional energy industry to thrive (thereby also increasing the tax flow from energy). He is too unfriendly to immigrants in our view. Disappointingly, he said campaign censorship laws should be "maintained," and he thinks flag desecration should be Constitutionally outlawed.

    Most disturbing is Maes endorsement of the "personhood" measure, which if fully implemented would outlaw nearly all abortions, outlaw common forms of birth control, restrict fertility treatments, and subject women to severe legal interference.

    Maes also punted on several questions. For example, we asked, "Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest?" Maes answered, "It already is." Cute. Perhaps Maes would care to answer the question next time: what does he think the law should say?

    At least Maes answered (most of) the questions. That's a start.