Tancredo, who has passed Republican Dan Maes in the polls after largely usurping the former Tea Party favorite’s support, was trailing Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper in a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, 47-42.

Yet, with talk shows and other media outlets seeing Tancredo’s campaign as surging, some voices have raised concern about the ramifications of a Tancredo win. His detractors point to extreme comments made by the former Republican congressman, including one in which he threatened to blow up Muslim holy sites in retaliation for an attack on U.S. soil.

“Now I know that not everybody thinks they are bad, but I was concerned about a couple of [your statements]. I hadn’t forgotten. But you could be dangerous for Colorado,” host Craig Silverman told Tancredo. “If you say, you get involved with talking about bombing Mecca and Medina, is it possible that there would be a fatwa on Colorado?”

“You guys, remember, the statement that I made, in the context in which it was made, I think is quite defensible. I still do, and I still would say it,” Tancredo replied. “It is just that I would have absolutely no reason to say it as the governor of the state of Colorado. There are a lot of other issues of which I would become involved. So it is kind of goofy to say, ‘What if he said something like that again?’ Well, you know, the fact is that there is a lot of people who, just as you say, are worried about these issues. But if they are not relevant to the state of Colorado, I am probably not going to be talking about it.”

Tancredo made his statements during is 2007 run for president at the Family Table in Osceola, Iowa. During a presentation to a small gathering Tancredo stated:

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. But as I say, if I am wrong, fine. … I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have got to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That’s the most negative I can think of.”

Tancredo said that while he says “outlandish things,” he has never contributed to anything as far right as Hickenooper has on the left. “I never had any relationship with anything as far right as he has on the left. How come he gets away with that.”

Hickenlooper has been criticized by opponents after it was reported that he helped to establish and provide donations to the Chinkook fund. The 20-year-old fund has provided money to groups such as ACORN and Recreate 68, as well as a number of programs that benefit the homeless, mentally ill, and women.

“Lakin is risking everything… this guy, he’s hardly a punk, he’s done his [tours of duty] in the past and now he’s willing to call [the president] out on it. He throws it all away. He loses all his benefits and retirement pay and goes to prison for hard labor. It’s not a punk thing by any stretch.”

According to reports, the Army is considering charging Lakin with a host of crimes, including “missing movement,” for not appearing in Fort Campbell Monday as ordered to deploy overseas, and conduct unbecoming an officer. It is highly likely, given the precedent established in related trials, that Lakin will be stripped of his rank and hauled off to the military’s Leavenworth high security prison in Kansas, where he could be sentenced to hard labor for years.

Some see Lakin not as hero or martyr but as a tragic victim of the poisoned partisan atmosphere fed by the country’s over-the-top infotainment politics news industry, where conspiracies seem to hatch by the hour.

KHOW radio’s Boyles, though, is clearly reveling albeit gravely in what he calls the “showdown” and the “reckoning” that he believes history may well soon deliver to force the president to reveal the supposed missing citizenship documents and the alleged coverup.

“This isn’t about just the birth certificate,” he told listeners, callers and the large number of people who had apparently sent emails to the station blasting Lakin for disobeying orders in a time of war.

“The birth certificate is only one of so many documents. It’s a series of documents, a series of certifications that have been blocked, hidden… medical records, baptism, college and school records, passports, adoption papers– these are all hidden away,” said Boyles.

Hemenway, a staffer at the American Patriot Foundation, the group supporting Lakin and helping to raise money for his legal defense, described her vision of a de facto conspiracy among members of the upper echelons of power covering for the president mostly to cover for themselves, fearing that the case could wrench open a broad window on individual incompetence first in vetting the president and then in accepting the pretender president as legitimate.

“Lakin thinks the truth matters… The problem is that a lot of powerful important people have already said ‘There’s nothing here. We don’t need to worry about this.’ And their reputations and their image are on the line. It is truly a David and Goliath story. And so, many people want to keep this swept under the rug, because it’s embarrassing to them, because frankly they should have exercised due diligence. They should have vetted this man properly. It didn’t happen. In hindsight it’s a colossal mistake that it was allowed to happen like this, and we still actually are not aware of what Obama’s citizenship status is… You’re asking some people to have egg on their face if it comes out he was not actually born in Hawaii and he was born in Kenya as many Kenyans have said he was. This is a huge problem.”

Boyles said people just get “yelled at” for even asking these questions. As he did Monday, he talked about Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly who have dismissed the birther storyline. Boyles said progressives are using the Fox News rejection of the story against Boyles, to make him appear even less credible. It’s them, he said, Beck and O’Reilly, “they look like fools.”

“O’Reilly lied. He said he had seen the evidence. Joe Farrah [founder of right-wing site WorldNetDaily] calls him on it. O’Reilly said Well it wasn’t him, it was his staff. Farrah calls the staff on it and then they say No, the only thing they saw was what was on the internet… They look like fools.”

Lakin’s Greeley family have distanced themselves from his stance. His father told the Greeley Tribune last week that they were Obama supporters. Lakin posted a YouTube explaining his decision and he also posted his letter to Obama.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

“Our political system is broken,” Buck said. “What I love about the grassroots movement, the Tea Parties and 912s and other movements, is that they are expressing their voice in a way that can not be ignored by the political establishment. I hope the Republican party and the Democratic party move closer to their grassroots bases, that the grassroots bases aren’t co-opted by the parties.”

He said the voters would have to look at past actions in determining whom to vote for in the primaries, because the rhetoric will be similar. You have to look for people who “walk the walk,” he said.
On that score, Norton’s votes in favor of the controversial tax raises Referendum C and D set her apart. The success of those campaigns, with the backing of leaders like Norton, he said, began the Democratic attack in the state on the Taxpayers Bill of Rights.

Boyles was eager to hear from Buck on illegal immigration. Would Buck work to make it an issue?

“I think that illegal immigration is going to be a big issue,” said Buck. “I think that it goes to a lot of the spending that is going on in DC, to a lot of the issues that are going on in this country.

“I will make it an issue. I think that we have done great things in Weld County. I think that there is only so much we can do, though. It is really a federal issue and has to be dealt with in a strong way. ”

Buck said that reining in government spending would be his number one concern.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Tancredo told the tale to KHOW radio listeners on Thanksgiving Eve, The Tank no doubt coming down from his work earlier in the week helping to draft and present the embattled Colorado GOP “Platform for Prosperity” meant to unite the state Republican Party and designed primarily, it seems, by McInnis and his one-time gubernatorial primary race rival Josh Penry. Tancredo, of course, likely worked in the lines about making sure employers verify workers are legal residents or citizens of the U.S.

Among other things, listeners to his show Wednesday learned that, although slavery was not good, African Americans are better off for having been brought out of Africa to live in America; that Native American culture was only environmentally friendly because it lacked industrial-age sophistication; and that the (perhaps) Dutch Pilgrims came to America not to flee religious intolerance, but as part of an admirable quest to start an exclusive and intolerant society of their own. They also, in this telling, seem to have paved the way for Columbus.

“They had come from Holland, where there was a great deal of religious freedom and far too much for them, as a matter of fact. They didn’t like it. They didn’t like living around other people who had a different attitudes about God. And so they thought, ‘Let’s get out of here and go where we can be what we want to be and don’t have to live by people who don’t think the way we do.’”

Tancredo then poses a rhetorical question:

“Were the [Pilgrims] brave Christians who risked everything to gain religious freedom in the new world or were they European interlopers guilty of genocide?– which is the way they are portrayed in most history books today and the way that most children think of them. The schools have done this. The cult of multiculturalism has done this.”

And here we land upon Tancredo’s Thanksgiving Day message: Multiculturalism is destroying American culture. He said that if the Native Americans had really wanted to save their own culture and were smart, they would have killed the pilgrims. Here Tancredo was drawing on a speech he gave to the American University earlier this year.

According to American Renaisance, a white nationalist magazine, Tancredo said at the function that, “Throughout history, people who are not white Anglo-Saxon have become American by adopting a white Anglo-Saxon culture. Today, this cult of multiculturality emphasizes our differences— things that pull us apart instead of bringing us together.”

He was no less adamant on the radio Wednesday:

“We were dividing our selves–this multicultural push that we have is dividing us up into camps… The Indians, the biggest mistake they made was accommodating us, if you want. The Puritans. The Pilgrims that followed them. Columbus later. And it led to their destruction. Undeniably true. Their society, their way of life ended. And the beginning of the end started the day the pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock.”

The Tancredo Thanksgiving Tale:

25 November 2009
KHOW
8:50 pm

TANCREDO: But going back before that we have this fact that the pilgrims came here to the colonies. Well there was no colonies. They came here to Plymouth Rock, established a new existence for themselves, their families, et cetera. We have a tendency of thinking of them as coming here trying to find religious freedom. In fact it was a little bit different than that.

They had come from Holland, where there was a great deal of religious freedom and far too much for them as a matter of fact. They didn’t like it. They didn’t like living around other people who had a different attitude about God. And so they thought “Let’s get out of here and go where we can be what we want to be and don’t have to live by people who don’t think the way we do.” So it wasn’t really to find religious freedom. It was to establish a place where they could do what they wanted to do unencumbered and uninhibited.

Now the way the history books treat them today — of course they are ravaged by most history books and revisionists and people who want to create the worst possible image of the people who came here and started the country. So the question was Were they brave Christians who risked everything to gain religious freedom in the new world or were they fanatical European interlopers guilty of genocide?– which is the way they are portrayed in most history books today and the way that most children think of them. The schools have done this. The cult of multiculturalism has done this. So the question I guess is whether or not– I mean what is accurate?

They came in 1620, I think it was, about 100 of them. Only half that many survived the first winter in new England, so you had about and 50 of them left. They did make friends with Indians there. The tribe was the Wampanoag. They were befriended by them. They had a treaty for about 40 years as a matter of fact. Why? A little lesson here.

The Wampanoag saw them as an ally. They could gain their support against their historical enemy, the Narragansett . They were fighting with them a long time, they thought “Geez, these guys might help us out.” So they became friends with the colonists. Then a lot of things happened and they got in a fight. So after 40 years a lot of other stuff occurred. But that is what happened. And yes at a certain point they did get together and share some of the bounty of the land but that wasn’t the first year that they were there.

But at any rate, the point that is really interesting is– and a different take that I have on this than perhaps a lot of people on my side of the political isle, on the conservative side, who look at this whole thing and say “Why is it that everything in American– everything in our history is portrayed in the worst possible light?”

Well, see, about I don’t know 6 months ago I was speaking at American University and I was talking about the problems with the whole issue and the phenomena of multiculturalism. And I was talking about the fact that we are dividing ourselves up in this country. We were dividing our selves– this multiculturalist push that we have is dividing us up into camps– linguistic and ethnic and religious and familial. All of these things. The cult of multiculturalism is not something which unifies us. It is something that divides us, I was saying. And it is a bad thing and we should fight it.

But by the end of this speech– and by the way this crowed was not friendly: American University, probably 400 students. I would say 50 were on my side; 350 certainly were not– came in with these signs all in Spanish. I couldn’t read them. But they would just sit there holding these signs up. Then at the end they started screaming and yelling and getting obnoxious. But during the speech they were fairly pleasant, I mean they just sat there with these signs.

And then one guy screamed out at one point in time: “Well you know what we should have treated– the Indians should have treated us the same way that you are talking about treating other immigrants to the country.”

And I guess he was surprised by what he said. Because what I said was “You’re right. You are absolutely right. The Indians, the biggest mistake they made was accommodating us, if you want. The puritans. The pilgrims that followed them. Columbus later. And it led to their destruction. Undeniably true. Their society, their way of life ended. And the beginning of the end started the day the pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock. And I think it was Malcolm X that coined that phrase “We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock; Plymouth Rock landed on us.”

In fact, in Plymouth– in Massachusetts where Plymouth Rock supposedly exists, the town there has for the last 6 or 7 years– 5 or 7 years ago, I should say, put up a big sign that said “The Native Americans in this area don’t believe that we should be celebrating this day. They say it is the beginning of the end.” You would think that you would see something that said “Here is where the pilgrims landed.” No. It is this other thing to stress the fact that it was a bad deal for the Indians. Excuse me, Native Americans.

And you know what? It was. A lot of bad things happened to them. And they probably should have done something different. If they wanted to preserve their culture. They should have resisted the onslaught of these Westerners. They didn’t however except in scattered and uncoordinated opposition. They really didn’t do anything that was going to be significant enough to stop it. Here are 51 people. Okay. 51 people survived the first winter in Plymouth colony. And those 51 people, how could they have possibly overcome the advantages that the Native Americans there have just in numbers? The [pilgrims] could have been gone in the blink of an eye. Just like that. Why were they not? Why were they not. How come they were able to do what they did?

How were they able to prosper and expand, and more people came. And how come when Cortez came to the quote New World and landed and eventually ended up in what is now Mexico, of course, and was able to defeat a civilization that was centuries old–hundreds of thousands of–in fact millions of people made that civilization which he with 400 and some people conquered. How could this be?

Because of course the Indians who were here, the native Americans, the Aztecs and all the rest were not unified. They were enemies. They had been killing each other off because they were tribal and they were unable to get together and respond. Hence, they fell.

Now there were other reason of course. The cultural advantages–I mean the technological advantages of the people who came here. Let’s face it the people–the Native Americans had not even created the wheel. That is a problem when you face a civilization that comes with ships and guns.

[...]

They were, by the way this was not a society that was friendly to the land as we were led to believe. Remember that commercial of the Indian on a horse looking out over a, I don’t know, it was a highway in California or something. Trash was all over the place and this tear came to his eye. Let me tell you, my friends, the only reason that the trash wasn’t here when we got here was because nobody could make paper. It wasn’t because of this love for this pristine environment.

If you think that there is that within the Native American culture, please just go up and take a look at the roads at the Sioux Indian Reservation, the Crow reservation, almost any reservation in the United States. This is not– not necessarily, I mean some are better than others– but for the most part they are not models of a clean society. Lots of things happening here. And I don’t mean to put them down. I happen to really enjoy the Native American culture and appreciate what they were all about. But we have to be realistic about things and recognize that
when one culture, as I say, gets here with the technology that the West had at the time and faced a culture without that technology and there was a clash– probably no one is going to be too surprised which side
wins.

Now, the– but all that said– I am not telling you it is a good thing. It is just the way it was. And I think to tell you truth that perhaps people who live here today that were not, that did not come here voluntarily, I think that many of those people are lucky that they do live here even though their ancestors didn’t get here on the Mayflower. Mine certainly didn’t. But made the decision to come. But a lot of people didn’t. African Americans certainly. They for the most part, their relatives, their ancestors did not choose to come here.

Now the question that we have to ask ourselves and certainly African Americans have to ask themselves is: Are they better off as a result of the fact that they came under any conditions? And it does not mean for a second–let me reiterate– it does not for a second mean that slavery was a good thing, that we should be happy about it. It is a black mark on our society and all societies that have had it since the beginning of time. Or recorded time… It doesn’t mean it is good. Is someone better off today in the United States of America as a result that they came under–or are Native Americans better off as a result that people came here from the West and created the society that we have here? Or would they have been better off if that had not happened?

Everything is relative and depends on what you consider to be better, of course. But in terms of being thankful on Thanksgiving, I think probably everybody here could be thankful. No matter how they got here.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

A Fort Hood vigil, Nov. 5 (Photo: U.S. Army; Flickr)

Boyles was responding to a Colorado Independent story that quoted Abed Ayoub, legal adviser to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, who said that in the days after news of the Fort Hood tragedy his organization had been in “crisis mode,” monitoring and responding to tirades by men like Boyles as well as hate speech and threats. Muslim leaders were reporting phone threats in communities across the country, Ayoub said.

“Threats? What threats? Name the threat,” Boyles said on his Nov. 9 show, incredulous.

“There has never been one retaliation in this country. It is like it is myth. Aunt Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary, said she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment. You know what? There has not been one case, one documented case of retaliation against a Muslim person or an Arab person in the United States of America…

You know that there is not one case of retaliation. Not one case. It is like apples and — it is like razor blades in apples. It is a myth. And how these numerous Muslim societies come out and say we must do this, we must do that. And I am telling you that there is no instance of retaliation.

Political correctness is one of the many tools being used against us here in this country to take us down.

Ayoub argued, however, that the charged atmosphere after the killings demanded reliance on facts.

“This radio talk show host doesn’t have his facts straight,” Ayoub said. “We’ve had many email threats since this happened. Prominent community members in the Detroit metro area received messages saying ‘We know where you live.’”

Ayoub said that the FBI is currently investigating some of the more egregious threats and that the only reason “nothing has happened” is because “we alerted the authorities,” something Ayoub recommends to anyone receiving threatening communications.

Ayoub said that since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there has been a steep increase in hate crimes and what could be considered retaliation against Muslims. He said the first hate crime to come after the attacks was actually perpetrated against a Sikh, who was murdered because he was thought to be Muslim. Since that time Abed said hate crimes have been on the rise.

A report published by the ADC documenting hate crimes (pdf) against Muslims in America put the number at 80-90 incidents in the late 1990s. After a spike in incidents after the Sept. 11 attacks, during the period 2003-2007, acts of violence or credible threats of violence surged to 120-130 per year. Ayoub said the increase is reflected in data maintained as well by the Department of Justice.

“Look at the [U.S. Department of Justice] for hate crimes. Employment discrimination was on the rise. Violent crimes were on the rise. Mosques have been burned. Places of worship defaced. In Maryland, there was a church that was graffitied ‘Go home you [expletive] Arabs.’”

Ayoub said that a Greek orthodox priest was beaten in Florida recently because a Marine reservist thought he was Muslim. Think Progress reported that the priest, Alexios Marakis, got lost in Tampa and, asking for help, was struck over the head with a tire iron by Marine reservist Jasen D. Bruce.

A 2008 press release by the U.S. Department of Justice reported that “since Sept. 11, 2001, the Civil Rights Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Attorneys offices around the country have investigated more than 800 incidents involving violence, threats, vandalism and arson against Arab-Americans, Muslims, Sikhs, South-Asian Americans and other people perceived to be of Middle Eastern origin.” Thirty-seven convictions have resulted.

Catering to Muslims

On the Nov. 9 broadcast, prompted by The Colorado Independent’s story on his Nov. 6 comments, Boyles revisited his discussion of the Fort Hood shootings. He renewed his attacks on political correctness, avoided addressing fact-check concerns raised by the Independent and attacked Islam with guest Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.

At first Boyles backpedaled on whether he meant to imply that Islam was at war with the United States. He said he was only asking the question, that President Obama, like then-President George W. Bush, refused to acknowledge the threat Islam posed to the U.S.

“[Joseph Boven reports that I said] Islam is at war with America. Actually, Mr. Boven, what I said was ‘America says Islam is not — that we are not at war with Islam.’ ‘But,’ I said, ‘Is Islam at war with the United States?’”

Boyles soon made it clear to listeners how he felt.

“I am convinced that Islam is at war with you. What is it that you want to do? We have a president of this Christian nation, as they say, saying that we are not at war with Islam. I think that Islam is at war with us. I think that smart people know that.”

Boyles had said the fact that accused Fort Hood shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan had listed his nationality as Palestinian at his mosque, was a warning sign. But, as the ADC’s Ayoud told The Colorado Independent, it is common in mosque culture to list ethnicity as one’s nationality. Hasan listing himself as Palestinian was neither uncommon nor a sign of treason, Ayoub noted.

Nor did Boyles revisit his notion that a non-denominational prayer and meditation center being built at the University of Colorado-Boulder was evidence of politically correct decision-making that favored Mulsims. Boyles claimed Christians would never be similarly catered to. University spokesman Bronson Hilliard told The Colorado Daily that the center will be for students of all faiths and any students seeking to practice religion, meditate, quietly reflect or do yoga.

In his discussion, Boyles lingered on The Colorado Independent referring to his comments as coming during the afternoon of Nov. 6 when his radio show airs in the morning. The Independent corrected and noted the error.

Just reading

During the Nov. 9 show, Boyles read from an article by Examiner.com anti-immigration firebrand Frosty Wooldridge.

“If you look at Islam in the modern world, its terror tactics began in Munich, Germany, 1972, with the mass killings of Jewish athletes at the Olympics,” Boyles read. “From that point, every major mass murder or killing attempt across the planet stems from Muslim terrorists.”

Boyles again lashed out at political correctness as abetting Muslim terrorists in the U.S. He said military recruiters should view the term “Allahu Akbar” in the same way they view the term “Heil Hitler,” the expression of an enemy combatant.

CALLER: … There is no doubt that the attack on Fort Hood was definitely an act of terrorism. When terrorists are about to do what they are about to do they always yell “Allah Akbar.” That’s–

BOYLES: Yeah, sure.

CALLER: And that is what this guy was doing.

BOYLES: Ask him if somebody with this man’s political and religious beliefs would say that. He walked into the Army recruiter and instead of saying “Allah Akbar” said “Heil Hitler.” Do you think that the military would have said “Come on in”?

CALLER: Hell no they wouldn’t have.

BOYLES: Or “[Japanese Emperor] Hirohito is god” or —

In addition to speaking to Spencer of Jihad Watch, Boyles read from an essay by Wooldridge, who penned a series of postings at News With Views and crossposted at the website of white supremacist David Duke.

Spencer said any talk of retaliation against Muslims was an effort to silence men like Boyles.

“They want us to shut up because we are telling the truth about these things and calling attention to their flagrant manipulative hypocrisy in trying to put up this diversionary smokescreen about backlash, which is designed to divert attention from what is really going on and to prevent there being any kind of genuine steps taken to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.”

Special loyalty tests

Spencer also called for instituting additional loyalty tests for Muslim-American military recruits.

“In a sane world you would be right. The Army would be saying the Muslim soldiers need to demonstrate their loyalty in some way. They need to show us that they are not another Nidal Hasan. That there is going to be questioning. There is going to be additional scrutiny, and if they are patriotic Americans they should have no problem with that.”

Qaseem A. Qseh, founder and executive director of American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, told The Colorado Independent that all recruits to the military take an oath of loyalty. Spencer’s ideas, he said, would take the country in the wrong direction.

“This Jihad Watch wants some sort of litmus test … but as horrific as [the Fort Hood shootings were], you start dividing up this nation and having double standards, then America loses the very thing that so many people have fought for. No litmus test has ever been instituted against Jews, Christians or any other religion, because people will use ideology for their own ends.”

He reminded that black Americans were the target of terrorism and segregation, and often times under the Christian banner carried by the Ku Klux Klan.

“We do not tolerate that [type of terrorism], then or now. This is America, comprised of different people of shapes, beliefs, and colors”

A tragedy

In the wake of Boyles comments following the Fort Hood shootings, Muslim groups in Colorado reacted and responded.

Shoaib Ghori, administrator for the Colorado Muslim Society, told The Colorado Independent that he disagreed with views taken in the media that depict the tragedy as representative of Islam.

“We are sorry like the rest of America over the loss of life,” Ghori said. ” This was an act of an individual who acted crazily…. We don’t believe that he was acting on the behalf of Islam or that he represented Muslims.”

Northeast Islamic Center‘s Imam Ali agreed with Ghori, though was less reserved in his criticism.

“It is ridiculous that some people want to broad-brush Islam,” Ali said. “This was a man with a mental condition who had a break.”

Ali said all Muslim “hearts and prayers go out to those who were hurt or killed and to their families.”

“We are Americans who want the best for our country.” Ali said that the many U.S. Muslim soldiers prove that admirably through their service.

Read a transcript of Boyles’ Monday radio show here.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Josh Penry

Penry, the Grand Junction lawmaker who serves as Colorado’s Senate minority leader, suggested Ritter was using the recession-constrained budget to dangerously target the state incarceration system for budget cuts. He seemed to be attempting to paint the move as simultaneously unconsidered as well as part of a murky liberal agenda.

But the plan is part of no hidden agenda, as the governor’s spokesman Evan Dreyer is quick to point out, an assertion supported by the record. Ritter’s ideas about criminal justice are a corner stone in his approach to governing. For years he has been clear in his aim to lower ballooning incarceration costs by reducing recidivism rates in the state. Dryer said Penry’s statements were “just flat wrong.”

A rational discussion

On Tuesday, show host Craig Silverman asked Penry whether Ritter’s release of inmates demonstrated he was “soft on crime.”

“There is a clear agenda from this administration on sentencing laws. We have seen it in the general assembly from Democrats in the legislature. There is a push to spend less on incarceration. I am fine on having a rational discussion about that … But to do it under the pretext of a budget crisis I think is wrong. I do. It is. It is impossible to explain with a straight face to communities that this is the only place where you can save money,” Penry said.

Those kind of comments are just politics, said Dryer, underlining Ritter’s experience as a prosecutor and making sly reference to Penry’s scant knowledge of the criminal justice system.

“Bill Ritter has not had a change of values,” Dreyer told The Colorado Independent. This is not only about the recession, he said. Ritter worked for 25 years as a criminal prosecutor “putting bad guys behind bars … and his criminal justice leadership team is committed to focusing on public safety to protect the people.”

The governor’s plan to limit incarceration costs by reducing the state’s current 53.4 percent recidivism rate by half has been a goal of the governor since he took office. In fact there is a long history of support for recidivism reduction in Ritter’s speeches and budget proposals.

A long view

The Accelerated Transitional Program Pilot program announced as part of this year’s budget proposal stemmed from a commitment Ritter made in the 2007 State of State address to reduce recidivism in Colorado.

In fact Ritter touted a proposal to reduce the recidivism rate as part of his first 100 days in office and he introduced the plan as a budget amendment for fiscal year 2007-2008.

The Crime Prevention and recidivism-reduction package for the current year was released in October of last year.

“This package … keeps offenders from committing new crimes, from victimizing innocent people and from returning to prison at great taxpayer expense,” Ritter said in a release at the time.

The release further noted that it would be the “third year of significant recidivism-reduction initiatives under Gov. Ritter.”

Dryer said the current Accelerated Transitional Program is not merely a reaction to the budget but part of a careful plan developed over time.

“What it does is it provides an accelerated program for people who are getting out of prison in 180 days anyway. It gets them into a parole system that will have increased supervision and more services.”

Dryer said that the program provides services that are designed to increase the likelihood of success.

“Services included are education, job training, substance abuse prevention treatment — those are the kinds of services that will help parolees succeed and succeed early.

“This is part of that,” Dreyer said. “It fits right into the governor’s entire philosophy, to get those people who are coming out to succeed, to not go back.”

Changing course

According to the Colorado Statesman, the administration of Republican Gov. Bill Owens drove up Department of Corrections costs significantly in the years before Ritter took office.

“Gov. Roy Romer handed Owens a prison population of 14,312. Owens averaged a prisoner-population increase of 1,000 for each year of his tenure, with the population reaching 22,481 by Dec. 31, 2006 — a 57 percent hike.”

The increases helped rank Colorado 22nd in inmate population among the states and, according to Dryer, helped boost costs to near 10 percent of the state’s general fund.

The governor’s program was initially projected to save the state $19 million in savings this year by reducing the prisons population by 2,720. Those numbers are being scaled back, however, because initial estimates of parole denial set at 20 percent where drastically under projected. The parole board so far has rejected 80 percent of those eligible for the program.

Roughly 6,400 individuals were estimated to be released through the program but the parole rejection rate reduced those numbers to 1,600, which reduced projected savings. As a result, new cuts are being looked at in the department.

Dreyer told the AP that the numbers show that parole officials are being careful. “It’s a good program. It’s a good policy.”

Penry disagrees.

“This policy is madness and it should be stopped immediately,” he said.

Caplis and Silverman, 20 October 2009

SILVERMAN: Why are do you think Governor Ritter is doing it? Do you think that he is soft on crime?

PENRY: There is a clear agenda from this administration on sentencing laws. We have seen it in the General Assembly from Democrats in the legislature. There is a push to spend less on incarceration. I am fine on having a rational discussion about that — though I can tell you that a number of the proposals that have come out have just been flat out bad. But to do it under the pretext of a budget crisis I think is wrong. I do. It is. It is impossible to explain with a straight face to communities that this is the only place where you can save money. Remember these are people — 46 crimes people committed. One was a sex offender, one was a vehicular homicide while driving under the influence these are serious criminals.

CAPLIS: Well said.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Peter Boyles

During a conversation with guest Drew Zahn, WND contributor, Boyles said that, as a result of his on-air efforts, two billboards, pasted front and back with the question “Where is the birth certificate?” would be placed along I-70, where they will be viewed by more than 300,000 Denver-area commuters each day. Boyles said that birther Phil Wolf volunteered the billboards.

The boards will be located on Wolf Leasing Internet & Sales lot in Wheat Ridge.

“One thing led to another and I got a hold of Pete….I told him I’d be willing to donate my signs for the message,” Wolf told World Net Daily.

“It’s a very cool moment,” Boyles reportedly told his audience on Friday. “It’ll rock ‘n’ roll when this happens… Maybe other radio talk-show hosts will do the same and see what their audiences do.”

On Tuesday, Boyles said that though there was a growing call to mention Obama directly in the campaign, he felt that the original copy written by Joseph Farah, World Net Daily editor and chief executive officer, was powerful enough.

“The sign will just simply say, ‘Where is the birth certificate?”

Zahn added that the campaign was not “directly an attack on Barack Obama.”

“We are asking the issue about the birth certificate because it is an issue of Constitutional eligibility.”

Boyles and Zahn attacked fact-check websites. Boyles berated Snopes.com, which he calls “Snoops,” saying that it was an anti-”birther” website. Zahn said it was “the work of one woman in her basement.” They agreed that FactCheck.org’s hosting Obama’s certificate of live birth failed to persuasively counter assertions that Obama was not born in the United States. And neither man mentioned any of the statements that have issued from officials in Hawaii on the matter and that speak to the legitimacy of Obama’s native U.S. birth.

Boyles contended that the birther movement is gaining traction despite mainstream ridicule. “Our billboards are the best example of the forward momentum of the movement,” he said.

“I have car dealerships in Montana and Wyoming also, and I plan on putting up the signs everywhere,” Wolf told World Net Daily.

Why are so many people out there working so hard to debunk the claims? asked Boyles on his Tuesday show. As an answer, he and Zahn quoted Shakespeare in unison: “I think the lady doth protest too much!”

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.