One homeowner in Colorado has won the right to fly the Gadsden Flag but another in Arizona continues the battle.

Thornton, Colorado resident Eric Smith has won his battle with the East York Villas Homeowners Association and will be allowed to fly the Gadsden Flag without harassment.  To the southwest in Laveen, Arizona, Andy McDonel is having a much tougher time and has enlisted the help of the ACLU. 

Both men fought for their right to display the bright yellow Gadsden Flag bearing a rattlesnake and the phrase “Don’t Tread On Me.”  The flag is steeped in history going back to the founding of this nation and has been used by the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps over the past 235 years.

Their homeowners associations (HOAs) however saw the flags as political speech and as symbols of the Tea Party.  The groups sent Smith and McDonel letters demanding the flags be taken down.

This past week Smith learned that his HOA would no longer press him on the issue and he would be able to proudly fly the flag.  Lawyer Elina Hindley who represented the HOA sent a letter stating, “Please be advised, we have discussed this situation with the board of directors and the board has decided to allow the Tea Party flag to remain displayed on your property. Thus, you may disregard the request contained in the original letter.”

It appears McDonel’s disagreement will be a much longer and drawn out process.  The Avalon Village HOA told McDonel that his flag must come down and classified it as “debris” under the “garbage” section of the covenants.

In a letter from their lawyer last week, the association maintains that the Gadsden Flag does not fall under Arizona’s Community Association Flag Display Statute, a law enacted to ensure residents within covenant controlled communities could fly flags. 

McDonel has refused to comply and his case has received a great deal of publicity from not only local Arizona news outlets but FOX News and the New York Times as well.  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has sided with McDonel and sent a letter to the association on McDonel’s behalf. 

The ACLU argues that the Gadsden Flag’s military history affords it protection under Arizona law.  They point out that a previous disagreement between a homeowner and an HOA over the Gadsden Flag in 2003 was the driving force behind the law.

McDonel is chronicling his fight with the oppressive HOA on a blog and has vowed to keep the fight going.  Today he told the Times, “It’s a patriotic gesture.  It’s a historic military flag. It represents the founding fathers. It shows this nation was born out of an idea.”

I find it interesting how on one hand the left is dismissive of the Tea Party, 9/12′ers or individuals that they think might be a bit too much on the side of the United States Constitution.  On the other hand however there is obviously a sense of fear as episodes like this show.  They worry about a possible revolution - and maybe they should indeed be scared.

Update, 9/2/10, 5:55am – Mr. McDonel is now being represented by Dessaules Law Group in his battle against his HOA.  Attorney Jonathan Dessaules has submitted a letter to the representative of the Avalon Village Community Association taking them to task for pressing  a case against McDonel for flying the Gadsden Flag. 

Most eloquently, the closing of the letter states:

The right to fly an American or military flag of their choosing out of deep respect for those who risk their lives for freedom is not among those rights to be surrendered for the sake of neatly manicured lawns and other benefits an association offers.

Head on over to McDonel’s blog for all the latest in his battle. 

Michael Bennet is distancing himself from President Obama and the failed policies that are sinking the country. (RNC)

The only thing tanking faster than the economy is President Obama’s approval ratings.  According to the latest Gallup tracking poll, a mere 41% of Americans approve of the job he is doing while 52% disapprove.  Recognizing this, Democratic candidates across the nation are not seeking the president’s help with their November election campaigns. 

The challenge for candidates like Colorado’s own Senator Michael Bennet is whether to run with or run from any help the Obama offers.  Most have clearly decided it is better to distance themselves from a president who is presiding over a failing economy and pushing the nation far left of what their constituents’ believe.

When asked about getting help in his election campaign from Obama, Bennet told George Stephanopoulos on ABC, “We’ll have to see.”  Bennet was also quick to dismiss claims from the White House that the president helped him in his primary win against Andrew Romanoff. 

Bennet is not alone – Other Democrats facing growing discontent amongst the electorate are running from the president.  One Democratic insider told the National Journal, “He is a walking radioactive disaster.” A new video released this week, below, makes light of the issue showing candidates bailing out of Air Force One rather than let the president help them.

Did you earn the Medal of Honor, the highest military decoration? If not, feel free to wear it anyway and claim you were awarded the medal – activist judges say that is perfectly fine.

Wannabe veterans now have free reign to lie and claim military service and awards that they did not perform or receive thanks to two recent rulings by activist judges.  Two cases, one in Colorado and one in California, were the first to challenge the Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 law meant to protect the honor of our nation’s heroes. 

Many cases of civilians claiming military service or veterans claiming awards which they were not entitled to have come to light in recent years.  Some of these people used false claims for personal gain, often at the expense of those who truly earned the awards.  It was with this in mind that Congress passed the Stolen Valor Act which punishes violators with up to one year in prison.

The first case involved Rick Glen Strandlof.  Strandlof claimed to be an ex-Marine who won the Purple Heart and Silver Star – despite having never served a day in uniform in his life.  More than his claims, Strandlof launched the Colorado Veterans Alliance using it to advance his anti-war politics.  He was hailed as a hero by many left-leaning politicians desperately seeking veterans that supported them including Congressman Jared Polis – until his deceit was uncovered by suspecting veterans. 

Last month, U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed the case saying that there wasn’t “a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement.” 

Can you say WTF?

This was followed by a ruling yesterday by the leftist 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California saying that it was perfectly okay for Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, CA to say he was a Medal of Honor winner.  Alvarez was a water district board member that claimed he won the nation’s highest award while serving in the Marines. 

Alavarez challenged the ruling based on the First Amendment’s protections of free speech.  The court, widely accepted as the most liberal in the nation, agreed.  As reported by the Associated Press:

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him in a 2-1 decision Tuesday, agreeing that the law was a violation of his free-speech rights. The majority said there’s no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there’s no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.

The dissenting justice insisted that the majority refused to follow clear Supreme Court precedent that false statements of fact are not entitled to First Amendment protection.

These activist judges clearly are acting based on some demented interpretation of the United States Constitution.  Freedom of speech does not protect someone who commits an act of fraud which is exactly what these men were guilty of.  They willingly and knowingly portrayed themselves as something they are not for personal gain and they should be punished.

Chalk this one up as yet another case of activist judges stepping well outside the boundaries our Founding Fathers placed around them and all branches of government.

Despite what some might say, we owe no apologies for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. (National Archives)

Today marks the 65th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan – the second such devastating weapon used to end the bloodiest conflict in the history of human civilization.  Despite what some Japanese think, and seemingly President Barack Obama as well, we owe no apology for our actions that brought about an end to the horrible conflict. 

The United States did not join World War II by choice.  In fact, we sat idly by while Japan raped and pillaged eastern Asia at will.  We turned a blind eye to Adolf Hitler as he conquered most of Europe, killing millions in his mad attempt at establishing a new world order.

On December 7, 1941 we could no longer ignore the reality that the world needed saving and we were the only ones that could do it.  With those first bombs that fell on Pearl Harbor that morning, a sleeping giant was awoken and we knew we would do what was needed to bring an end to the conflict.

We pushed Hitler out of France and western Europe and Hirohito out of the Pacific and back to his own territory.  Despite the hopelessness of their situation, Japan stubbornly refused to surrender. 

President Harry Truman refused to sacrifice any more of our sons, daughters, wives, husbands, and parents.  He made the fateful – and necessary – decision to use atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

This past weekend President Barack Obama sent ambassador John Roos to the official observation of the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima – the first time ever a U.S. delegation has attended the event.  This was in keeping with the apology tour that the president embarked on since being sworn in two and a half years ago. 

It was nothing less than disgraceful and an affront to those who served – and died – in response to an attack on our nation. 

Hundreds of thousands died at Nagasaki and Hiroshima and that is a tragedy to be certain.  It is however nothing which we need to apologize for. 

Between the start and end of the war, the cost to our nation was beyond pale.  416,800 United States servicemen and women died in the four years between Pearl Harbor and the end of the war.  All in a conflict that we did not start and in fact tried desperately to avoid. 

Some have estimated that nearly 1 million Americans would have died in an assault on the Japanese homeland to end the war.  That was and still is a price too heavy to bear.  We instead ended the war with two decisive blows that saved lives – American lives. 

When Japan asks for an apology or President Obama considers giving one, he should just be reminded of one number:  416,800.

Which one to choose - Scott McInnis or Dan Maes? Neither!

I have just sealed up my Republican primary ballot and it will be going in the mail today.  Most of the races we have only one choice but for some we have to make decisions and for me, it was not a matter of selecting a candidate but rather choosing to not select one.

In the race for Colorado governor we are to choose from Scott McInnis or Dan Maes and to put it frankly, neither is worth the ink spent to fill in the bubble on the ballot.  The image you see to the right is exactly how my ballot looks as it is being sent in. 

I have written before that I am sick and tired of having to choose between the lesser of two evils and that is what this primary race is.  It is time to take a stand and send a message to these two candidates and to the state GOP that we will not accept either as our nominee. 

Scott McInnis’ use of plagiarized material in essays he supposedly wrote and his subsequent attempt to shift blame are simply unforgiveable.  This is not a man I can vote for – period.

The other choice, Dan Maes, is a bit tougher of a call.  I feel like I should like Dan Maes but here I think we have a case of a man who is simply in over his head.  The leap to the governor’s office is simply too big for Maes at this point and he would be a lamb to the slaughter in a battle against Democrat John Hickenlooper.

Why leave it blank?  To send a message that neither of these two represent my views or views of Republicans and conservatives.  Neither McInnis nor Maes can beat Hickenlooper and whichever wins the primary needs to withdraw their name so that a committee can select someone who can win and who has the right skill set and belief system to lead the state. 

My hope is that when they see the number of undervotes on the tally, they will realize they can’t win.  The gubernatorial race in Colorado is important – too important to entrust to either of these two candidates or the state GOP and Dick Wadhams. 

The other big race – United States Senate

In the race to challenge either Michael Bennet or Andrew Romanoff, the Republicans are choosing between Jane Norton and Ken Buck.  I believe either of these two will be good candidates and match up well with the Democratic nominee.

Norton and Buck seem to have the “right” stuff and I look forward to one of them taking a seat in the Senate chambers. 

A little race but an important one – Adams County Sheriff

I did leave one other race blank on my ballot – that of a selection for Adams County Sheriff.  Here there is only one candidate and the choice would seem simple.  However, Mark Nicastle is only on the Republican primary ballot because of a change in political affiliation.

He did not make the change because of any philosophical difference with the left or because he felt his political beliefs were more in line with Republicans.  Nicastle is a lifelong Democrat who switched parties so he could run against Democrat and current sheriff Doug Darr. 

The Adams County GOP should never have welcomed a carpetbagger and they too need to understand we are tired of plugging our nose when voting. 

The rest of the slate

In most of the other races there is only one choice and all seem to be good candidates and should represent the party well.  Returning Colorado to its center-right roots is critical and these men and women need to carry forth a message that conveys the importance of  stopping the slide to the left.  Whether at the county level, at the state capitol or in D.C., the time has come to return the power to the people. 

Related stories:

• Politics of self-destruction – Colorado GOP set to turn governor’s office over to Hickenlooper
• Do Republicans have a bigger problem than the Tea Party?
• Let’s talk about ‘electability’ and how it has failed us

Obamacare represents an unconstitutional mandate on the states and the people. A new ballot measure will seek to allow Colorado to reaffirm our rights under the 10th Amendment. (Independence Institute)

This spring lawmakers in Washington D.C. and President Barack Obama rammed their faulty version of health care “reform” down the throats of the American people against their will.  On Coloradoans’ ballot this November will be an issue allowing us to opt out of the unconstitutional portions of the mandate.

On Friday, the Independence Institute headed by Jon Caldera submitted more than 76,000 signatures for the “Right to health care choice.”  This measure will allow Colorado to opt out of the mandates in Obamacare that require citizens to purchase health care against their will.

This measure reaffirms our constitutional rights under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 
~ 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

This clearly means that the United States government cannot force states to enact or enforce a federal program – including health care.  Further, the government is not allowed to compel its citizens to spend their own money in a way they do not want to. 

It is under this provision that so many states’ attorneys general have filed suit against the federal government – including Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.  As Suthers wrote back in March, “The Constitution gives Congress the enumerated powers to regulate those engaged in interstate commerce. It does not give the Congress the power to compel a citizen, who would otherwise choose to be inactive in the marketplace, to purchase a product or service and thereby become subject to congressional regulation. Such an expansion of the current understanding of the Commerce Clause would leave no private sphere of individual commercial decision making beyond the reach of the federal government. It would render the 10th Amendment meaningless.”

Assuming enough signatures on the petition are valid, this issue will be on our ballot in a few months.  It is important that Coloradoans understand the wide-ranging implications of allowing the federal government to trample our constitutional rights.  We need to vote in support of this measure and send a message to Washington – Don’t Tread on Me!

Click here to read the ballot language.

Related:

• A complete and utter failure of representative government 
• Texas to reaffirm sovereignty under 10th Amendment
• Forgotten promises: Obama said we would have five days to review bills
• Health care roundup – Some interesting views from across the web

A student in Georgia and one in Michigan face expulsion from public university's for daring to stand by their Christian beliefs.

It comes as no surprise that our education system, particularly at the college level, is liberal – that has long been acknowledged.  News this week shows that these left leaning institutions of “education” are now taking action against students that refuse to conform to their distorted view of the world and man.

The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit this week against Augusta State University (ASU) on behalf of 24-year-old Jennifer Keeton.  Keeton was told that she would have to take part in a remediation program because she dared to voice her belief that homosexuality was a choice.  ASU informed her that she could not graduate unless she completed the program. 

The Christian voiced her opposition to being forced to conform to the “morals” being pushed on her by the university, ones that stood in direct opposition to her beliefs.  David French, speaking for the ADF said, “Abandoning one’s own religious beliefs should not be a precondition at a public university for obtaining a degree.”

In a very similar case, Julea Ward was expelled from Eastern Michigan University (EMU) for having the audacity to refer a homosexual client to another counselor – on the advice of her professor.  For not participating in condoning something she did not believe in, Ward was expelled.

Ward as well filed a federal lawsuit and today an activist judge upheld the university’s right to expel the student.  U.S. District Judge George Steeh wrote that, “Plaintiff was not required to change her views or religious beliefs; she was required to set them aside in the counselor-client relationship — a neutral, generally applicable expectation of all counselors-to-be.”

The judge apparently felt that setting aside one’s religious beliefs in order to graduate from a publically funded university is an acceptable requirement. 

These two cases highlight to major issues – The forcing of leftist beliefs on students in our education system and a failure in our country’s belief system and morals. 

Public universities are certainly a bastion of the left.  They freely spout their demented beliefs and push them on our nation’s youth all while hiding behind the First Amendment. 

Students usually are forced to comply, willingly or not.  Many sit silently while being subjected to ideas that they know are wrong.  Now we have a case of two students who stood fast to their beliefs and the education system responded by simply removing them. 

As we have written before, right and wrong doesn’t change with social opinion.  Ward and Keeton know this and should be commended for taking a stand – not punished.

A painting "One Nation Under God" by artist Jon McNaughton serves to highlight our country's founding based on Christian beliefs. (Jon McNaughton)

Much damage to our nation has been caused under the auspices of the ‘separation of church and state’. That infamous phrase appears nowhere in our founding documents and has taken on a meaning completely contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers. 

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

George Washington himself said, “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor;” 

Sadly, our liberal court system of the past 100 years has misinterpreted this and perverted it to mean something it was never meant to. 

This came my way via email and I thought it was worthy of sharing.  Artist Jon McNaughton has created an astounding painting paying reverence to the United States Constitution and the significant role God played in the founding of our nation and the 234 years since.

The image at the above right does not do the painting and its meaning justice and the video below is a small attempt to capture the meaning behind the work.  I would encourage you to visit the artist’s website and notice the interactive nature of the page dedicated to the work of art and its explanation of each person depicted.

• Related: How could 50 states be wrong?
• On the net: McNaughton Fine Art

The 'Obama tax hike exemption card' serves as a reminder of the broken promise President Barack Obama made about taxes on families making less than $250,000. (ATR)

Leading up to the 2008 presidential election, then-candidate Barack Obama proclaimed, “No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”  To help hold the president to his promise, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is offering “Obama Tax Hike Exemption Cards” as a reminder of the pledge (since broken) made to the American people. 

The United States economy is in shambles with no sign of recovery.  Unemployment continues to remain stubbornly high and businesses and consumers across the nation are hurting.

Undeterred, the president and a Democrat led Congress have pursued a progressive agenda leveling more and more of a burden on the American people.  This is all contrary to what the president promised before and after being elected.

On September 12, 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama said, “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

This claim was repeated after the election on February 24, 2009.  “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,” the president said.

Less than two months later, the president’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the president’s promise and Gibbs said, “The statement didn’t come with caveats.”

But politicians have rarely make promises they won’t break when convenient and so it was with the president.  The massive Obamacare health care bill contains 21 tax increases that affect those families making less than $250,000. Further, reports are now out that Democrats are looking at not extending the Bush tax cuts – an act that would certainly increase the tax burden.

Since the president promised we wouldn’t pay any more taxes – and we all know he his word is as good as gold – you can now get your “Obama tax hike exemption cards” from ATR.  They are a great way to protect you from an overreaching government and the taxes imposed by it.  Be sure to get one and let your elected representatives know you don’t have to pay these taxes – the president promised.

• On the net: Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card from the Americans for Tax Reform