And he be havin' a dream.

The Democratic-led Colorado state legislature passed a new 'science-based' sex-education bill that looks likely to be signed into law by Democratic Governor Bill Ritter.  Among other things, the bill would forbid Colorado schools from teaching abstinence-only sex education.  That's not going over well with many schools districts.

From today's Denver Post:

Students in Wray don't receive lessons in health class on how to use condoms or when to take the morning-after pill, and the small, northeastern Colorado community likes it that way.

But a proposed state law awaiting a likely signature from Gov. Bill Ritter will force school districts to include science-based material, including emergency contraception, in sex-ed classes.

"We don't teach that kind of material ... not as graphic as what that new law is saying," said Wray superintendent Ron Howard.

...officials in other school districts think the state should stay out of such a sensitive curriculum issue.

"It bothers us the state is wanting to legislate what is being taught in schools about methods of birth control, about sexually transmitted diseases," said George Welsh, superintendent for Center School District, the only district in the state to accept federal money tied to abstinence-only programs. "Why not trust that we in Center ... can make this decision on that?"

About a third of Colorado school districts teach abstinence-only sex education.  It's yet to be seen just how many will skip the sex ed altogether.  My guess is the Wray and Center are the first of what will be many more districts that will choose not to educate kids about sexuality than teach them about condoms and emergency contraception.

What's so Orwellian about this new morality-free sex ed is that it takes big decisions on things like sex education out of the hands of parents and local communities and into the hands of liberal bureaucrats.  Most Coloradans think sex should be abstained from until marriage and this bill says that popular will doesn't matter. 

Republicans tried passing another bill a couple of months ago that would toughen math and science standards for graduation.  The Democrats killed it, in essence sending the message that schools can teach whatever they see fit when it comes to math and science but when it comes to condoms, homosexuality, and abortion, it's best left up to the 'grown ups' at the capitol.  Let it be clear that when it comes to something as serious as teen sex, morality does matter and parental imput matters.  I hope that the people of Colorado throw this back in the liberal legislature's lap as more and more schools opt out of anti-abstinence education.

 Watch this.


God bless our troops.  Of course we remember you.

H/T: Powerline

Get jet lag easily?  Have transvestic fetishes?  Hot for bestiality? 

Colorado Democrats are pushing a bill that would mandate insurance companies provide coverage for a new array of 'mental illnesses.'  The bill would force providers to cover children suffering from 'gender confusion' and those with transvestic fetishes--among other things. 

HT: Face The State

The legislation was approved by the state affairs committee on a on a party line vote of 3-2, with Colorado Springs GOP Senators Dave Schultheis and Ron May voting against it. The duo says the bill will force insurance companies to cover questionable diagnoses like jet lag, zoophilia (bestiality), transvestic fetishes, voyeurism, gender confusion in children, and transsexualism. The new mandates would also require drug and alcohol abuse coverage, while exempting coverage for those seeking to fight tobacco addiction or issues surrounding homosexuality.
Schultheis is concerned that the bill excludes certain diagnoses in order to advance a partisan social agenda. "To force coverage for sexual disorders but exempt homosexuality, which is also listed in the ICD-9, reeks of bias and agenda. Then, forcing insurance companies to cover the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse, but exempting tobacco, really does not pass the smell test."

The Democrats in Colorado pledged to leave alone the 'God, guns, and gays' agenda as to appear moderate to voters.  Does this constitute breaking a pledge?

 Less than a year after Colorado voters turned down a referendum allowing gay civil unions and gay adoption, among other things, the Democratic majority in the Colorado legislature has passed a bill allowing gay couples to adopt.  From today's Rocky Mountain News:

 A measure to allow gay couples to adopt won initial Senate approval Wednesday, despite several lawmakers' objections that it advances the "homosexual agenda."

The bill is expected to get final Senate OK within days and head to the governor, who has signaled he will sign it.

"This is a remake of the homosexual agenda," said Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley. "It's not about protecting children. It is an attack on the traditional family. It undermines the traditional marriage structure that we need to keep strong and sacred."

The question is whether or not this will matter to voters.  Do they realize what a slap in the face this bill constitutes?  My guess is that they probably do.  Hopefully that prompts them to think seriously about which party they want to lead Colorado in 2008.

   So Jomentum is back!  Lieberman today filed the necessary petitions to run as an independent this fall against Crazy Ned Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger.  Let me bring attention to two prediction I noted yesterday, pre-primary. 

First of all, I was right about the final outcome.  I thought it would be 51-49.  I was off by less than 2 percentage points.

Second, the MSM has been hollering long and wide today about how the anti-war movement is potent and how pro-war Democrats and Republicans should really be scared. 

What rubbish.  John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics  explains today why the big winner is the GOP.  Let this be a referedum on Iraq and let the left howl.  On November 8th this country will be much more red.

Far be it from me to tell the Jewish people what to do.  But after seeing and hearing the virile Jew-hatred from the "nutroots" folks like George Soros and the Daily Kos, my guess is that there is no excuse for Jews to vote for the Democrats.  Oh sure.  Maybe a couple of years ago they could have gotten by with the naive notion that the Democrats were still the party of FDR.  But now?  Joe Lieberman was just delivered a stiff boot in the behind.  There are some curious anti-semitic markings left behind.

     Colorado will have a peculiar looking ballot this November.  In addition to a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, there will be a de facto initiative to sanction civil unions between gays.  Conservative Denver Post columnist Al Knight has a piece today on why opponents of same-sex marriage should vote against referendum I, the civil unions initiative. 

Voters in Colorado don't have to guess what will happen if Referendum I passes. Just look at Vermont. That state's Supreme Court has recently handed down a ruling touching on a variety of issues including when one state must recognize the rulings of another state and what defines a "natural or biological parent." In a stunning footnote, the court refused to accept the notion that "natural parent" is the same as "biological parent."

It also danced around the issue of how the common-law rule of presumed paternity applies to homosexual couples. In heterosexual couples, it is presumed that when the wife gives birth, the husband is the father. This presumption cannot be applied to gay couples for obvious biological reasons, yet the Vermont court refused to say so, leaving this question for yet another day and yet another lawsuit. (Denver Post, today).

Knight correctly asserts that for the very same reasons those of us oppose same-sex marriage, it is consist to vote against civil unions.  More precisely, because it is fundamentally basic to our society that kids have both a mother and a father, and gay unions would negate this imperative.  If gays can unite or marry or whatever, ther is no legal restraint preventing them from adopting.  What's more, referendum I is no simple civil unions bill.  Rather, it is absolutely marriage.

     Take it for what it's worth, but WTIC-radio  in Hartford is reporting that turnout is in the 40s for the Connecticut primary (as opposed to the usual 15-25%), and that so far it looks like Ned Lamont is having a very good day.  The polling is informal and very preliminary because the vote is expected to become much heavier in the afternoon, and, as we know circa '04, exit polls are very dubious.

Another notable story from WTIC:

Apparently the Lieberman website/e-mail account has been vexed with a DOS (Denial Of Service) bug since last night.  Campaign officials are placing the blame squarely on Lieberman opponents (whether with the Lamont campaign or not).  The Lieberman campaign is threatening to press charges.

Let me just say, before the firestorm begins, that a Lamont win is good, not bad, for the GOP.  Many are speculating that a very high voter turnout and a Lamont win (both of which are apparently coming to fruition), signal a mighty backlash against the war and the president.  The truth is, it shows that the left is emboldened and very active.  The left, though, is a very small sliver of the electorate at large and many Democrats will be turned off, big time, by the left wing.  They'll likely stay home or maybe, please God, vote Republican.  The left was mobilized in '04 against President Bush and they failed.  As long as the GOP stays active and energized, this could be a big year for the GOP.

     I don't know if Jomentum will carry Connecticut' senior senator to victory today.  For what it's worth, my guess is that it's a 51-49 split favoring Lamont.  Lots of controversy will follow, the left will be turning on the Democratic party, and the Republicans will have a little time for a big, deep breath.  Nevertheless, liberal Lanny Davis seems to grasp what's at stake here.  It is, really, about whether the left will stick the final dagger in the center-left Democratic party. 

This kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the right wing--in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, with his tirades against "communists and their fellow travelers." The word "McCarthyism" became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far right's fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a "communist" or "socialist" who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field. (Wall Street Journal, today)

The truth is, of course, that the right is a mighty demon in the eyes of many on the left.  Davis is one exception where someone realizes that vitriol doesn't win anything and crazy nutter lefty-business only scares your average, quaker-oates-eating American.  Think the net-roots left and the uber-liberal Democrats in Connecticut will get that message?  Me neither.

     Ah yes!  Thank you Martin Peretz for your insightful erudition on Joe Lieberman's impending expulsion from the Democratic Party.  Peretz, a refreshingly pro-war Democrat, gets it. 

Finally, the contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the world. Mr. Lamont's view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Let's call this process by its correct name: appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it "incentivization." Mr. Lieberman's view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration. Why should they be? After all, they inhabit a universe of inevitability, rather like Nazis and communists, but with a religious overgloss. Such armed doctrines, in Mr. Lieberman's view, need to be confronted and overwhelmed (Wall Street Journal, Today).

Indeed, this is the choice being presented to not just Democrats in Connecticut, but also the national contingent.  Ned Lamont is fetchingly blind to the major threat this country faces.  He shrugs off the war in Israel as another round of violence between Jews and Arabs.  Or more precisely, as a result of imperial oppression by Jews, Brits, and of course, Americans. 

In fact, here's Lamont's official statement on Israel (from talkleft.com):

....Unlike previous administrations - Republican and Democratic - President Bush has embraced the wrong priorities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ...Let's be clear that Bush emphasized Iraq at the expense of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, and we are reaping the consequences. Just think what the situation could have been if the United States had invested its power, prestige, and resources in a peace settlement. Instead we chose a failed war and stand virtually alone, paying a heavy price for a profoundly failed set of decisions. 

If you're an anti-war nutter, you have to just love this stuff.

 Lieberman is woefully wrong on abortion, marriage, taxes and the rest.  But he most certainly gets it on my generation's most important issue: the global war on terror. 

With that said, I hope he loses.  I want the country to see just how wacky the Democrats and their left wing really are.  My guess is that if Lieberman loses, the Republicans have a much better chance of making gains this fall.  Yes, you read that correctly.  Making gains.  And I hope Joe runs as an independant and wins.

There is a number at which people can call and give President Bush a "Thank you" for his unyielding support of Israel.  Call him at 202-456-1111, although, it has been rather busy today.  Keep trying nevertheless.  I often wonder if he really knows what Americans think these days.  The media would make us out to be peacenik ninnies.  The truth is, of course, that Americans are actually a cheeky bunch who don't want to see democracies lose this War on Terror.

It is probably way too early to look forward to the '08 elections.  But just surveying the likely GOP candidates frightens me a bit.  Rudy is quite simply, too socially liberal to win the base's vote.  McCain is, well, McCain.  The rest are okay to good, but none of them terribly great.  With Hilary up the pike, we may very well need someone great.  Mike Pence, although he has never really expressed any great interest in the presidency, is one of the most articulate spokesman for conservative values.  This, from the Spectator...

Pence is a deeply religious conservative but makes his political philosophy grounded in individual liberty:

"Say it this way: We're stuck with Mike Pence. He talked a lot about liberty this morning and barely mentioned the federal marriage amendment. Maybe he'll turn out to be good enough for us and better than that for the country. At least we can hope so." (Spectator)

Yes, it's still early.  But don't overlook the dashing congressman from Indiana.

    It's no longer a secret that polls, especially election polls, are largely wide guesstimations into the minds of voters.  Come on.  Two years after 52% of the American electorate voted for President Bush, he's now in the mid-30s for job approval?  Common sense and some political savy would tell us that he's probably not at 52%, but it's unlikely that he's lower than the mid-40s.  Denver Post columnist Fred Brown has a theory as to why polls are so transparently bad.

What it all comes down to is that if you are a Republican and are reading all of the dire estimates about the imminent GOP downfall: lighten up a bit.  The pollsters don't know and even they admit that the one thing they simple cannot project, is turnout and activism among constituents.  In other words, if conservatives show up in November and work hard before then, given just how silly the Democrats have become, there is no real reason that the GOP cannot blow the Dems out of the water.  If you talk to voters, most are just as discontented as they were in '04, and they're just as mystified at liberal looniness, too.

     'Tis a blessing to have a man like Mark Steyn on our side in this war.  Steyn's latest column deals with the idea of war as profession, and why it's so dangerous.  The truth is, Steyn articulates, war is much more about ideas.  Yes, America can utterly destroy it's enemies....militarily.  Yet war, as we are beginning to see much more clearly, is very much about giving a capable military power something compelling to fight about.

Says Steyn:

War is not like firefighting: It's not about going to the burning house, identifying what needs to be done, and doing it; it's not a technical solution to an obvious problem. And, if you think it is, you find yourself like George Bush Sr. in 1991, standing in front of the gates of Baghdad and going, "Er, OK. Now what?" Some people look at the burning house and see Hezbollah terrorism; others see Israeli obduracy, or a lack of American diplomacy, or Iranian machinations, or a need to get the permanent Security Council members to send peacekeepers, or "poverty" or "despair" or an almighty pile-up of abstract nouns. You can have the best fastest state-of-the-art car on the road, but, if you don't know where you're going, the fellow in the rusting '73 Oldsmobile will get there and you won't. It's the ideas that drive a war and the support they command in the broader society that determine whether you'll see it through to real victory. After Korea and Vietnam and Gulf War I, it shouldn't be necessary to have to state that. (Chicago Sun-Times, 7/30/06)

It is at times like these, when the going gets tough, that factionalism takes hold most strongly.  Yet, it is at times like these where we most need unity.  This is the tricky paradox of war that keeps so many other countries out of the business.  The George Wills split with the Andrew Sullivans, although they both generally split in the same direction.  The Murthas split with very dissatisfied army generals, although they both generally split the same way.  The original core of war supporters has dwindled considerably, but at the center stands two brave men: President Bush and Tony Blair.  I'm not terribly concerned that the American committment, militarily, will waver as long as Bush and Blair are running the show.  Yet the military need the public's idealogical committment as well.  I don't know, although I doubt it, that the general public has given up yet. 

This isn't even entirely about keeping our cities safe (although it that is a lot of it).  It is not entirely about the transformative power of democracy in a region long held by the strong grip of tyranny.  No, these days we fight because we believe in liberty as both transformative and edifying.  America is mainly about freedom and it's no use to embrace the status quo as during the Clinton years when the world is on fire.  America, whether she likes it or not, is thrust into the infurno because she, as the signpost of liberty, has to do that sort of thing.  Americans don't need to see their country so much as a knight in shining armour coming to free the beholden maidens in the Arab world as much as they need to see themselves as the "last, best hope for mankind."  Lincoln was right then.  We really could use his voice now.

Concludes Steyn:

Our enemies understand "why we fight" and where the fight is. They know that in the greater scheme of things the mosques of Jakarta and Amsterdam and Toronto and Dearborn are more important territory than the Sunni Triangle. The U.S. military is the best-equipped and best-trained in the world. But it's not enough, it never has been and it never will be.

Indeed, this is all about ideas.  And in the war of ideas, we are much more vulnerable than we'd like to think.