Possessing a right is separate and distinct from exercising that right.  I have a right to burn the American flag.  However, I choose not to exercise that right.

Colorado and the Nation as a whole face a significant turning point in the 2010 mid-term elections. 

The country yearns for elected officials with strong beliefs in limited government, lower taxes, individual responsibility, a strong national defense and a return to Founding principles.  But we also yearn for elected officials who understand the governing processes by which those principles can be implemented.

Campaigning is a separate and distinct process from governing. 

The 2011 Colorado legislature and Governor will face a monumental task of redistricting congressional, state senate and state house districts.  They will face crucial issues on spending, taxation, immigration, water, and a plethora of other issues that will determine the direction of Colorado for years.

I want someone in the Governor’s office who understands the intricacies of coalition building, trust, negotiation, the legislative process, and, most importantly, the ability to communicate to all Coloradans a basic understanding of the choices the state faces.

Mr. Maes has shown through his campaign that he lacks the ability to communicate under pressure, and, most importantly, has violated the trust of campaign contributors and supporters.  And, unfortunately, he has shown that when under pressure, he lacks the judgment to handle difficult situations, as evidenced by the sloppy and perhaps illegal attempt to categorize, re-categorize and ultimately, return what may or may not have been a campaign contribution or personal gift from an 83-year old woman.

I strongly criticized Scott McInnis on my radio show for the handling of the Rolly Fischer matter when he mistreated the elderly Mr. Fischer and attempted to shift blame to him for Scott’s own poor judgment.  Similarly, I criticized Mr. Maes on my radio show last night for his mistreatment of Freda Poundstone’s generosity and his bungling of that issue.

Judgment, or the lack thereof, is a trait that all voters should consider when looking at candidates trying to earn their votes.  Mr. Maes has evidenced a lack of judgment that will make governing very difficult, if not impossible, if he is elected.  His failure to understand the judgment issue itself is evidence of a lack of judgment.

However, if you continue, you will find an insightful visualization of risk.  Too often in America we understand little of the risks we face or the odds of something bad - or good - happening to us.  How many purchase lottery tickets knowing that the winning combination for the jackpot can have odds in the millions-to-one? How many are fearful of flying, or being mugged, or being murdered, or, as this video points out, becoming autistic through the use of vaccines?

The purpose of showing this is not to enter into the debate regarding the efficacy of vaccines or, for that matter, the risks of autism associated with vaccines.  Instead, I'm posting this video because it is a great visualization of putting risk into perspective.  So as you watch it, think of whatever phobia or fear you have (lightning strikes, bear attacks, plane crashes) and then check out the odds of that catastrophe happening to you, and remember this video.

While the language Penn & Teller use is over-the-top (and, in my opinion, unnecessary) nonetheless this a great example of the misuse and misunderstanding of statistics and risk in modern American society.

Quick, what does it say?

“Use of Party newspapers and magazines as toilet paper is strictly forbidden.”

Draw your own conclusions.

[H]e described the release of Pan Am Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who was expected to die of terminal cancer three month after his release last year by Scottish authorities, as "unfortunate, inappropriate and wrong.” Overseas press, however, reported in August, that the White House had supported the release of Megrahi.

Mr. Brennan had visited the Washington Times Editorial Board on June 24 as a result of a June 11 Washington Times editorial he objected to. It did not take long for the White House counter-terrorism adviser to lose his temper with our editorial board’s questions regarding what he previously said about individuals who become terrorists.

Mr. Brennan cut the meeting short and stormed out of our offices thereafter following a question posed by senior editorial writer Jim Robbins (transcript and video below). Referring to a quote Mr. Brennan said in May, calling jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam," Mr. Robbins looked to discuss the concept of jihad further with the Obama administration adviser. Fox News reported earlier in May:

The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies. 

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms." 

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either. 

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said. 

Why can't we admit that radical Islamists are the enemies of Western civilization, determined to destroy our way of life, our Constitutional form of government?  Watch Mr. Brennan:

John Brennan, Obama's Counterterrorism Advisor confronted over his defense of jihad. The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

The dispute over the Islamic center has tripped some deep national lunacy. The unbottled anger and suspicion concerning ground zero show that many Americans haven’t flushed the trauma of 9/11 out of their systems — making them easy prey for fearmongers.

Little did I realize that my opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque (a term I will continue to use despite the Associated Press' desire to change it to Park51 or something) was because I had failed to flush the trauma of the 9/11 attacks from my system.  Perhaps a new stimulus package would be for all opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque to get therapy for their trauma, then the world would be OK. Stuart Smalley (aka US Senator Al Franken) could introduce the spending bill to pay for all of our therapy.

Maureen, get serious.  This isn't about trauma.  I'm over the trauma.  But, I'm not over the fact we were attacked on that date in 2001.  I remember it well.  And, I don't claim that Islamists don't have a Constitutional right to build their mosque at 51 Park if they can get the appropriate permits for construction. Mosques, synagogues, churches, temples, are all denied building permits every day in this country, and no one complains.  My complaint is not that they don't have a "right" to build there, they do.  My objection is that it is not appropriate to build there out of sheer consideration for the victims.  

In case you've forgotten about those victims of that horrendous day, take a look at the following:

I say don't build the mosque for this reason, the falling man.  

Put yourself in the position of the family of this man, who has made the decision to take control of his death. He refuses to die in the heat and suffering of the building from the attacks of that day.  Instead, he chooses to control that death by leaping from Tower One. Do you call him part of the "herd" you refer to? 

No, Maureen, we're not herds, we're not reacting to fear, or ignorance, or some trampling of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  We're reacting to basic human decency.  Have you none?

This is powerful.  These statements are a classic example of how basic principles should govern politicians, and how different those principles are between the ruling class of today and those represented by Ronald Reagan.  If these people represent the current Democrat Party, then we are in deep doo doo.  

From Powerline blog and the Republican Study Committee comes this interspersing of Ronald Reagan's articulate pronouncement of basic American principles juxtaposed next to those current leaders who would take this Nation down a path of socialism and Marxism.

My tolerance has just evaporated.