Mark Hillman

In memory of Rush Limbaugh, I wanted to share a few memories.  In May 1993, a few “dittoheads” from my church headed to Fort Collins for Dan’s Bake Sale, an impromptu gathering of Rush Limbaugh fans who converged on Fort Collins to help Dan Kay raise $29.95 to buy a subscription to Rush’s newsletter.

We didn’t know what we were in for until we reached northbound I-25 in Denver for what should have been a 45-minute drive to Old Town Square.  We realized something was different about this day when the drive slowed to more than two hours because the freeway was flooded with fans of Rush from across the country.

The Coloradoan newspaper estimated attendance at 20,000 – about the number who attended CSU football games at old Hughes Stadium.  Believe me, Rams traffic never backed up I-25 like we experienced on this day.  Attendance was surely several times greater.

Like the Tea Party Rally in Washington 30 years later, conservatives gathered, conversed and celebrated, picked up their trash, and generally “practiced what we preached.”  Those were literally the good ol’ days! (more…)

Originally published in The Denver Post:

Colorado’s courts have long lacked the transparency demanded of other branches of government.  Deadlines require the state legislature to act on bills in a timely manner and allow citizens to easily monitor their progress.

But the court system operates behind a veil.  Lawyers can access certain information as a case moves toward trial, but once a case is heard by a judge – especially a civil, or non-criminal, case – the parties involved have no way to know when to expect a verdict.  The public is completely in the dark.

Media watchdogs who would decry lack of accountability by legislators, city councilors or county commissioners seem to accept without question that courts issue opinions whenever they get around to it.  News reports about judges failing to produce timely decisions simply do not exist.

A particularly egregious case recently came to a head in Denver District Court where Judge Ross Buchanan issued a ruling nearly three years after trial.  Worse still, Buchanan’s ruling smacks of vindictiveness against a defendant who had the temerity to complain about this unconscionable delay. (more…)

Even politicians with the largest social media following don’t run campaign ads touting their tweets and posts as a qualification for holding office.  And for good reason.

Last July, Pew Research found that 55% of all social media users were “worn out” by political posts and discussions.  These numbers grew markedly worse over the past four years, but applied to both parties: 63% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats.  Only 15% actually liked seeing a proliferation of political posts.

Mind you, this was a survey of social media users who, by definition, choose to be more politically engaged than the average person.  Yet, even most of these “political junkies” were weary of social media skirmishes.

Some politicians in both parties seem more pre-occupied with building their social media profile than doing the job for which they were elected.  Still others can’t resist using their electoral “fame” as an occasional platform for snarking at the opposition.

Sooner or later, it comes back to bite them. (more…)

Five Americans lost their lives in the riot at the U.S. Capitol.  What makes that tragedy even worse is that it was so unnecessary.  We didn’t arrive at this volatile moment, when loud voices on both sides show contempt for each other, because of the failings of a single political party.

We are here because members of both parties, aided by their respective media cheerleaders and other attack dogs, have rewarded rhetorical bomb-throwers and cultivated distrust at the expense of what we once called “good government.”  Neither party should be proud of its own poor judgment (to be polite) during the past four years.  The problem is that too many “leaders” believe the ends justify the means.

The January 6 tragedy – like the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting – is a reminder that this careless rhetoric, always escalating the stakes, isn’t merely a game.

Consider: (more…)

(more…)

We live in a truly strange and unsettling time in America.  Never before have I seen ordinary, hard-working Americans so on edge, so angry, so spoiling for a fight — about anything or with anyone, even people they recently considered personal friends.

A couple years ago, I asked Charles Murray, author of Coming Apart, if he could think of anything that would unify Americans other than a direct attack on our soil, the Olympic games, or some form of Divine intervention.  He could not; neither could I.  Soon, olympic athletes became a source of political division, too.

In the past, Americans usually were usually able to agree to disagree on most matters.  Today, every disagreement becomes a line in the sand – a reason to boycott, terminate or excommunicate.  Seeking common ground, even where readily available (e.g., defending freedom of speech), is viewed as weakness.  Rather than work through a problem, we immediately choose up sides and declare our rightness or wokeness, while decrying others’ inability to grasp the truth as we know it.

Before, if you had something snarky to say about someone, you might mention it to your spouse or a couple friends.  Having aired your grievance, the flames of anger died down. (more…)

In any other context, it would be fairly unusual to have such an intense political debate about the appointment of such an obviously-qualified candidate for the Supreme Court as Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  But this is 2020 and everything is unusual.

Judge Barrett, a mother of seven, demonstrated exceptional poise and knowledge through three days of grueling Senate committee hearings.  Her exemplary performance under scrutiny, her career as a scholar of the Constitution, and her undeniable brilliance mark her as well-qualified for the court and a role model for young women. (more…)

In this year’s election, Colorado voters will decide on 11 ballot questions that will amend either the state constitution or statutes.  Following is my attempt to condense sometimes complex issues into a simple statement that explains my thoughts on each question.

NOTE: Constitutional amendments cannot be changed by the Legislature, only by a vote of the people, so if they don’t work as advertised, it’s really tough to make corrections.  Statutes can be amended by the Legislature. (more…)

One explanation for the contempt and polarization in our country is that many of us never learned what it means to be “American.”

Unlike citizens of most countries, “Americans” do not fit a racial stereotype.  George Washington said that Americans were “a new race,” unlike any other.  American colonists cultivated liberty and self-government.  Immigrants came to pursue religious freedom – the right to follow their own conscience.

Immigrants to France or Germany or Russia can become citizens of those countries, but that doesn’t make them French or German or Russian.  In those countries, immigrants stand out as different and don’t enjoy the same societal status as native citizens.  But immigrants to America, through becoming citizens, contributing to the economy, and engaging in their communities can soon become as “American” as anyone else.  Often, they are an inspiration to natives who forget that life in our country truly is better than in any other.

The genius of America is captured in our motto, E pluribus unum, correctly translated, “Out of many, one.”  From many different countries, backgrounds and beliefs, we come together as one people: Americans. (more…)