Archive for the ‘Editorial, Opinion’ Category

Senate Vote on D.C. ban a victory?

March 3, 2009

As always, the devil will be in the details. The much hailed Heller verses D.C. Supreme Court ruling was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as I posted about at the time. The last paragraph of the ruling has opened up more onerous attacks on the Second Amendment than has generally been seen in the past. The latest ruling utterly denied the ex post facto aspects of the non-felony Domestic Violence lifetime gun ban, and now the political shenanigans of Speaker Pelosi will again thwart the Constitutional protections granted to all Americans in the Bill of Rights.

Senate Repeals D.C. Gun Ban By Large Vote
— But the fight in the House is just beginning

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Monday, March 2, 2009

By a resounding vote of 62 to 36 last week, the U.S. Senate has approved
an amendment, offered by Senator John Ensign of Nevada, to repeal the
D.C. gun ban.

Congratulations!

But the battle is not over.

This week, the House will take up the D.C. voting legislation. And
anti-gun Speaker Nancy Pelosi is angling to impose a “gag
rule” on the
House, so that D.C. gets its unconstitutional representative, while
continuing its draconian anti-gun laws (like microstamping).

So here’s the deal: The House will be asked to consider a
“rule” which
establishes the time for debate and provides for which amendments may be
considered — and which may not.

It is expected that the Pelosi rule will seek to deny the House any vote
on the D.C. gun ban and thereby strip the repeal of the ban from the
House bill.

So what we are asking you to do is to write and/or call your congressman
and demand that he oppose any rule that strips the D.C. gun ban repeal
from the D.C. voting bill.

Just to remind you of how draconian the D.C. gun law is:

* Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller declaring the law to
be unconstitutional, D.C. made a few cosmetic changes which will, as a
practical matter, allow it to continue to deny its citizens the right to
keep and bear arms.

* Then, the City Council passed a whole series of new anti-gun measures.
These include a requirement that most guns used for self-defense
“microstamp” fired casings in two places with a “unique
serial number.”

Aside from being ineffectual with respect to stolen guns or crimes where
the brass has not been left behind, this microstamping provision is
intended to make guns so expensive that they won’t be available anywhere
— including your state.

ACTION: Write your Representative and urge him or her in the strongest
terms to oppose any rule which will strip the gun ban repeal from the
D.C. voting bill.

You can go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the
pre-written e-mail message below.

You can also call him or her toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Representative:

This week, when the House takes up the D.C. voting legislation, please
vote against any rule that strips the Senate’s pro-gun language and/or
imposes a “gag rule” on members of the House.

Just to remind you of how virulently anti-gun the D.C. gun law is:
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller declaring the law to be
unconstitutional, D.C. made a few cosmetic changes which will, as a
practical matter, allow it to continue to deny its citizens the right to
keep and bear arms.

But, in addition, the City Council passed a whole series of new anti-gun
measures. These include a requirement that most guns used for
self-defense “microstamp” fired casings in two places with a
“unique
serial number.”

Aside from being ineffectual with respect to stolen guns or crimes where
the brass has not been left behind, this microstamping provision is
intended to make guns so expensive that they won’t be available anywhere
— including my state.

I urge you, in the strongest terms, to oppose any rule that makes it
impossible for you to vote on the D.C. gun ban repeal.

Sincerely,

Cowards of the Court: Mysandry and the Constitution

February 28, 2009

The Supreme Court did in fact fail to address the actual issue this past week regarding the Lautenberg Domestic Violence Law. They approved ex post facto law, and, the taking of rights based upon less than felony behaviors.

Anyone that has the temerity to think that the current make up of the Supreme Court will, in practice and fact defend the Constitution and it’s base principles is quite simply delusional. They are a bunch of politically correct kiss asses.

Since I am more than aware some will view this as a rant against women I need to state unequivocally that I believe that Domestic violence is a very real problem. My problem is with how it is addressed, and dealt with. Men are overwhelmingly brought up on charges of domestic violence more often as compared to women. Further, that when women are charged, the implication in nearly all cases is changed and they are ordered into “parenting classes” or some other such nonsense. Thereby allowing them to continue to be full citizens, as opposed to men convicted for the same crimes. Note please, that I am throughout this op/ed  addressing non-felony domestic violence convictions. When women are in fact charged in the very same situations that men are, probation, and restoration of rights is common. When it is a man? Probation is de facto only an available alternative if the man is a celebrity, or related to powerful individuals. That is called sexism for those that are incapable of rational thought.

The issue of ex post facto law strikes at the very basis of Anglo American jurisprudence. Changing the rules after the game has already been played is immoral. Approving such a thing is also immoral, and that is precisely what our Supreme Court did. Utilitarianism has no place in a republic where people are protected from the tyranny of the majority. At least in theory that is the presumption.

I have no faith whatsoever in the Supreme Court when it comes to protecting the people of our nation. Our alternative then appears to be seeking redress through our locally elected representatives at the state level, and or through the affirmative action by state Governors, as in commuting sentences or the more difficult pardon process.

What then is needed to rectify the situation? Stay tuned folks, because this is getting too long winded as is.

Strange Bedfellows Indeed: AWB 2009

February 28, 2009

Dirty Harry Reid and San Fran Nancy Pelosi in bed seeking to thwart Eric Holder and the rest of the obamanite’s? Actually supporting the Second Amendment based upon the Constitution? I’m somewhat dazed and it’s been fully a half hour since checking an RSS feed that almost makes it appear that the democrat congress is siding with the National Rifle Association. I’m still waiting for a Gun Owners of America situational analysis, and as we all have learned based upon the collective histories of the players involved we had better keep our heads up.

Eric Holder the treasonous creep that he is blames Americans for Mexico’s crime problem. No, not anything that might be rational, such as America fueling the drug business via the seemingly insatiable market. But, naturally, he attacks our freedoms attaching the blame to Americans. Alright, I’ll give him just a little bit of lee way there. After all, some criminals are buying weapons as straw purchasers and selling them to the drug gangs. That is already a serious felony though Mister Attorney General. But, in your (Eric Holder’s) warped mind it is just so much simpler to deny Americans that have nothing at all to do with the criminal activity their rights as granted them by our Constitution. Or is it just that they (Americans not involved other than possibly as victims) would be all that much easier to arrest and convict than the criminals that are part and parcel of the drug gangs that are more prone to shooting back?

Put all these things together and what do we have then? Politicians that are frightened beyond the pale that they might just lose their positions of power and prestige. An Attorney General who has based his entire career upon being a lackey for the powers of mysandry and hopolophobia. That is also all too obviously a fall guy for the administration, and that has a history of being right in the middle of having an innocent woman killed while holding a baby in her arms, and later having Americans burned to death. None of these people are friends of the American people. After all, the drug gangs have ample means of securing sophisticated weaponry. It’s just  easier to have innocent Americans slaughtered and by law, incapable of effectively defending their families, friends, nation, and selves.

What follows is the National Rifle Association’s take on it all.

Feds Send Mixed Signals On Push For Gun Control

HolderOn Wednesday, February 25, just over five weeks after Inauguration Day, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration will seek to reinstate the expired federal “assault weapon” ban and impose additional restrictions.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said. Based on Holder’s testimony during his confirmation hearings before the Senate, those other “changes” presumably include prohibiting private transfers of firearms and banning most center-fire rifle ammunition as “armor-piercing.”

Holder said that new gun control laws are needed because in Mexico, a country with a history of corruption and disregard for individual rights, there’s a shooting war going on between drug gangs and government troops, and some of the gangsters’ guns have been illegally purchased in the United States.

Few Americans are going to buy into the idea that the U.S. is responsible for internal problems in any foreign country, particularly one to which we give millions of dollars in aid, and in turn illegal drugs and illegal aliens flow freely into our southwestern states.

Holder tried to sell his scheme by saying that “International drug trafficking organizations pose a sustained, serious threat to the safety and security of our communities,” noting that law enforcement officers in this country have arrested more than 750 individuals on related illegal narcotics charges over the last 21 months.

Atta-boy to our law enforcement officers for their good work in making drug gangs bite the dust. But it appears that Holder exaggerated the “threat” that they pose to the U.S. On Thursday, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesperson told NRA-ILA that there is little incidence of Mexican drug gang members committing violent crimes in this country against Americans who are not involved in illegal activities with the gangs. Some Americans who have colluded with the drug-smugglers have not been so lucky, but for that they have only themselves to blame.

Of course, ignored in the discussion was any mention that straw purchasing a firearm for a Mexican drug runner, and transferring a firearm to someone knowing it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime, are currently federal felonies punishable by 10 years in prison.

Holder was still enjoying the high (pardon the pun) that he must have felt from his media moment when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reminded him that it isn’t the Attorney General who makes laws in the United States. Asked whether Holder had spoken to her before putting himself in front of the national news cameras, Pelosi said “no,” adding, “I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now.” Shortly thereafter, the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stated flatly that “Senator Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future.”

Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid were joined in opposing Holder by members of the bipartisan House of Representatives Second Amendment Task Force. U.S. Rep. and Task Force co-chair Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said “The Attorney General’s recent comments about reinstating the ‘assault weapons’ ban are extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our Constitutional right to bear arms.” Co-chair Dan Boren (D-Okla.) added, “The Second Amendment Task Force is adamantly opposed to reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons as it clearly would demonstrate a violation of United States citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.” Other members of the Task Force include Democrats Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), and Republicans Rob Bishop (R-Utah), John Carter (R-Tex.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Steve Scalise (R-La.).

Independently, Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), an NRA Life Member, said that he would “oppose any action on behalf of the Attorney General or President Obama to reinstate the assault weapons ban.”

Unfortunately, Holder still has many options for ways to threaten the right to arms. As examples, he could force the BATFE to once again arbitrarily reinterpret firearm importation law, to further limit the kinds of firearms that may be imported. He could force the agency to discontinue its support of the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects both the privacy of gun buyers and the integrity of police investigations. And though the Justice Department has previously testified against the type of “armor piercing ammunition” restriction gun control supporters advocate today, Holder’s DOJ could reverse course. Holder could also direct BATFE to adopt enforcement policies designed to drive licensed dealers out of business.

And while Sen. Reid has a good record on many gun control issues, there is no doubt where Speaker Pelosi truly stands. She will support gun control, but on her timetable, not one provided her by the new Attorney General.

As we expect to say a lot over the next four years, “Stay tuned.”

SOURCE

You heard it here…

February 26, 2009

I warned even before the democrat primary had ended that a renewal of the failed Assault Weapons ban would be coming our way, further, that it didn’t matter who won the election. Now, because of criminals in Mexico, the obamanites will be making a push for reinstatement. Never mind that the violence will be, or already has spilled across the border. The politics of revenge are hard at work indeed, just as I warned. What is the true goal of the obamanites? Simply put, it is to make it quite clear to all of you that you cannot effectively protect and defend yourself, your family, and you nation.

We have Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist cells here already. We have MS13 and related gangs here already. The obamanites seek to have you available for slaughter without any method of resisting them as well as the gangs and terrorist’s. Don’t bother sending word to your elected representatives, they are in cahoots with all of the control freaks. It takes little observation to figure that out. If it were indeed otherwise then why the hell do the obamanites want you disarmed? Why are the borders still porous? Why the hell are you politicians making it so that the American people cannot properly and effectively capable of defending themselves?

My advice is to arm up as best that you can. Further, that you should do so “off paper” when possible. Why make rogue agencies like the BATFE have an easier time of destroying the nation and Constitution that they swore to protect and defend?

Am I being paranoid? Possibly, but that doesn’t meant that they are not out to get your weapons. Read about it…

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

The Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration.

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

SOURCE

Culling in California

February 25, 2009

Robert addresses the carrying capacity of the environment here. Well done friend!

Local listeners to KFI-am-640 have been treated to the John and Ken show, those guys are loaded for bear over the RINO’s in California. WE have an abundance of RINO’s around here and when the population of ANY species gets too big for the land to handle it must be dealt with. RINO’s are known to trample on common sense, they destroy HONOR, they eat all the available cash crop to grow their own coffers. They are a menace to society and we must hunt them down and remove them from any leadership position. Heads on a stick so to speak, it’s time for us to unite, and recall all those that do not live up to their stated CONSERVATIVE values. IF they classify as RINO’s they need to be REMOVED ASAP!…

This is a public service announcement for Californians.

Arnie Swarzenegger needs to be removed ASAP he has always been a RINO and perhaps the most RINO like EVER!

Recall ABEL MALDONADO

Vote out Anthony Adams and Jeff Miller.

This is a good start but there are also the 3 idiots that voted for the STICK-IT-TO-US in the DC senate.

addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Famericanandproud.net%2F2009%2F02%2Frecall-the-rinos%2F’;
addthis_title = ‘RECALL+THE+RINO%26%238217%3Bs%21’;
addthis_pub = ”;
AddThis

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

S22 yet another assault on YOUR rights

February 24, 2009

Anti-gun Land Bill Moving Again
— Gun control should be stripped from the legislation

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Monday, February 23, 2009

An alert last week asked you to urge your representative to oppose a
massive land bill that was scheduled to come before the full House at
any time.

The good news is that opposition to the bill grew so loud that the
leadership pulled it from the calendar so they would have more time to
muster enough votes to pass it.

Well, that also gives you another chance to contact your own
representative to tell him to OPPOSE the anti-Second Amendment Omnibus
Land Act. The bill, S. 22, is now scheduled to be voted on this week.

S.22 is a mammoth bill comprised of over 190 separate pieces of
legislation and will come to the floor with a rule that will not allow
pro-gun representatives to offer amendments.

There are serious Second Amendment concerns with this legislation. S.
22 will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National
Park Service (NPS). Because the rights of lawful gun owners are
restricted on NPS land, the bill will create even more
“anti-Second Amendment” zones.

In contrast to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest
Service, which allow State and local laws to govern firearms
possession, NPS land was until recently subject to a complete gun ban.

In the waning days of his administration, President Bush partially
reversed the ban, but that half-way measure still leaves a significant
portion of the gun prohibition in place. Gun Owners of America has
fought for several years to fully repeal the NPS regulations, but those
efforts have been hampered by the anti-gun leadership of both the House
and Senate.

GOA opposes many parts of the bill that are controversial and have not
been debated on their individual merits.

Consider just a few provisions of the 1,294-page bill:

* Section 2002 codifies the National Landscape Conservation System,
which groups together 26 million acres of federal land and places it
under one umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton
administration and run administratively since that time. S. 22 will
make the system permanent, raising concerns for hunters and sportsmen.
Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service,
which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is
unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun
owners’ rights will be protected at all.

* Section 5204 of the bill establishes the Washington-Rochambeau Route
as a Historic Trail. This dual trail begins in Rhode Island and
travels 650 miles to Yorktown, Virginia. The trail includes parts of
major thoroughfares on the east coast such as Interstate 95 and US
Route 1, meaning the gun ban could effect hundreds of thousands of
unsuspecting gun owners each day.

* Section 5301 authorizes the federal government to buy private land
adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by
the NPS, and thus be subject to the agencies’ anti-gun regulations.

* Section 7002 makes the birthplace of William Jefferson Clinton a
National Historic Site. Well, perhaps it’s fitting that the legacy of
former President Clinton, who was responsible for so many anti-Second
Amendment laws, will include yet another “gun free” zone.

In all, the bill designates over 2 million acres of wilderness,
establishes three new national parks, a new national monument, three
new national conservation areas, and four new national trails.

If there are parts of the bill that could stand on their own, they
should be brought up separately and dealt with in an open and fair
process — and not used as bargaining chips in exchange for compromises
of your Second Amendment rights.

Some people on Capitol Hill contend that all of these bills already
passed the House anyway. In fact, no they haven’t. More than 70 of
these bills now before the House were only passed by the Senate. The
House of Representatives never even held hearings or open debate on
these measures.

Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) has indicated that he wants to at
least have the opportunity to offer an amendment to ensure that the
Second Amendment rights of all Americans are protected.

However, right now it looks as though the anti-gun House leadership
will refuse to allow any amendments to the bill, in order to ensure
that it goes straight to President Obama’s desk.

There is a possibility that an amendment to protect only hunting and
recreational shooting on federal land would be allowed. Such an
amendment by itself is not sufficient and is clearly designed as a
“cover” vote for gun rights compromisers.

Please contact your representative and urge him or her to insist that
an amendment be allowed to protect ALL of your Second Amendment rights
— not just hunting and recreational shooting.

ACTION: Please urge your Representative oppose S. 22. You can go to
the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative the
pre-written e-mail message below.

—– Prewritten Letter —–

Dear Representative:

I urge you to oppose S. 22. Among the many problems with this
1,294-page bill are the following concerns gun owners have:

* Section 2002 codifies the National Landscape Conservation System,
which groups together 26 million acres of federal land and places it
under one umbrella agency. The NLCS was created during the Clinton
administration and run administratively since that time. S. 22 will
make the system permanent, raising concerns for hunters and sportsmen.
Much of this land is consolidated from the BLM and the Forest Service,
which have always allowed hunting and recreational shooting. It is
unclear what rules will be promulgated by the new agency and if gun
owners’ rights will be protected at all.

* Section 5204 of the bill establishes the Washington-Rochambeau Route
as a Historic Trail. This dual trail begins in Rhode Island and
travels 650 miles to Yorktown, Virginia. The trail includes parts of
major thoroughfares on the east coast such as Interstate 95 and US
Route 1, meaning the gun ban could effect hundreds of thousands of
unsuspecting gun owners each day.

* Section 5301 authorizes the federal government to buy private land
adjacent to national parks and trails. Such land would be controlled by
the NPS, and thus be subject to the agencies’ anti-gun regulations.

Since it appears that amendments will not be allowed to this bill —
thus prohibiting any attempt to remove these troubling provisions — I
would urge you to vote against S. 22.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

A Republic Lost

February 24, 2009

The times they are a changing. Or so the song goes. Change can be a good thing. Forgetting the lessons of history are yet another thing though. I am stealing this work from Tracy at No Compromise because we have different readers, and it sends a message that needs to get out. Enjoy!



A Republic Lost – U.S. Constitution a Dead Letter


My blog buddy and co host Jefferson Paine has posted an important piece you must read and act on today!

“It has become akin to beating a dead horse, but we here at No Compromise feel it necessary to reveal the truth, even when it’s ugly.  Lately, it has become more than obvious, with a bona fide Usurper now occupying the Oval Office, and all branches of the U.S. Government running roughshod over the carcass of our once-sacred Constitution, that this miraculous document is now merely a dead letter.  Never, in my lifetime, would I think that I would be reporting on the following Unconstitutional mischief now cooked up by our esteemed apparatchiks in Washington.

“Through bill S. 160, Congress is poised to “grant” full voting and Representative power to the Federal seat of power – the liberal stronghold of Washington which fills the District of Columbia!!! (purposefully created as a ‘non-State’)  Not only is this power-move by the Democrat-controlled Capitol blatantly Unconstitutional, but is one more naked act of mob rule which our Constitution was designed to prevent – that is, if we decided to obey the supreme law of the land.  There is very scant time to stop this if we call our Congress-people immediately and demand that they cease this farce.  Isn’t it high time to start talking about exercising our moral and legal, God-given Right to peacefully secede from this corrupt federal circus??”

Read more here and PLEASE pass onto your lists

Contact your reps here >>
Contact your Senators here >>

Finally, REMEMBER THEY ARE ROUND FILING YOUR EMAILS.  CALL OR FAX ONLY

Taxes, taxes…

February 24, 2009

Who really likes taxes? I consider them to one of two things. Necessary evils for the things that we all need, and outright theft.

What to do about taxes? Well, you can go the route that California has done, and end up like California. Or, you can do like Colorado did years ago, and pass as well as enforce what was called the taxpayers bill of rights, or TABOR.

Look for an instant back at the very first thing I wrote. It was a question. The list is in fact very long. That being who really likes taxes. Bill Ritter likes taxes. Unions like taxes. People with social agendas like taxes. The list goes on…

Despite the California experience, as well as more than a few other states; there are still people that are completely irresponsible, if not immoral. Below is a piece written by a Colorado Senator that takes a rather candid look at the taxation situation. He addresses Colorado, but in reality, it is the nation. No, I was not attempting to be a poet.

Colorado’s Fiscal Restraint vs. California’s Failed Socialist Experiment

By Senator Ted Harvey

The current and steep recession across the country has not spared Colorado or its budget.  With only five months remaining in this fiscal year, the legislature is racing to cut $600 million from our current year’s budget.   This is a lot of money, but it pales in comparison to the massive $42 BILLION hole that the state of California is trying to manage.

The Golden State legislature has been under lock down as the Democrat majority tried to twist arms and find one more vote to increase government revenue by $14.2 billion by taxing  income, sales, gasoline and cars.  Six years ago Mr. Schwarzenegger defeated Governor Gray Davis by calling him “Car-taxula.”  Ironically, Governor Arnold’s current budget is asking to double the same tax.

The difference between Colorado’s budget troubles and California’s budget meltdown is not random – Colorado is doing comparatively well because its people have pursued fiscal restraint, while Californians have approved reckless spending packages year after year.

US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said that state legislatures are laboratories of democracy in America.  The impact of the current economic crises on national and state budgets could not provide a more vivid opportunity to prove this theory.

While Colorado has chosen fiscally prudent constitutional constraints on growth and spending—through the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) and a 6% growth cap on state spending—California has chosen the path of a socialist experiment in their state.  Like the failed communist experiments of the 20th Century, the irresponsible Californian experiment is soon to find its appropriate place atop what President Ronald Reagan called “the ash heap of history.”

The results of California’s experiment are in: the Wall Street Journal explained that California’s “total state expenditures have grown to $145 billion in 2008 from $104 billion in 2003.” As a result, California’s credit rating has fallen beneath Louisiana’s as the worst in the nation, and the state can now boast the nation’s fourth-highest unemployment rate of 9.3%, and the second-highest foreclosure rate.

Businesses in California have been heavily taxed to fund the $145 billion of entitlement programs, and have been heavily regulated to live up to special interest “green” and “pro-union” policies.

While California businesses are fleeing the burdensome tax and regulatory schemes of the Golden State, Colorado is aggressively marketing to these companies.  Just last month, Douglas County successfully secured 500 new jobs resulting from the relocation of a division of Charles Schwab from California to Colorado—partially because of our friendlier business climate.

The lesson Colorado’s legislators must learn from this recession is clear: fiscal responsibility works. Even though the legislature collectively fell short of creating a rainy day fund, TABOR and the Arveschoug-Bird 6% spending cap forced Colorado legislators to keep spending low. Had the government enjoyed free rein in ramping up spending – which is a great temptation to many lawmakers tasked with spending other people’s money – Colorado’s budget crisis would be as serious as California’s.

The spending limits of TABOR and the Arveschoug-Bird cap implement a culture of fiscal responsibility where there would otherwise be a temptation to spend every dollar that can be stripped from the taxpayers. Colorado must keep these spending limits in place to avoid falling into the trap of state socialism.

Coyotes: Living with wildlife, again…

February 24, 2009

This time it’s not about Boo Boo. Nope, it is about the most adaptable predator of the canines in North America. The way these critters attack in groups you might almost think that they are registered democrats!

State wildlife officials say coyotes attacked a 51-year-old Denver woman walking her dog on Saturday evening.

The woman reported being surrounded by three coyotes near her home on the 3900 block of South Oneida Street.

She said two of the animals attacked her 75-pound Labrador retriever. When she tried to protect her pet, one of the coyotes scratched and bit her.

The woman was treated at a Denver hospital and released the same evening. She took her dog to a veterinary hospital.

Colorado Division of Wildlife officers were unable to track down the coyotes. But the agency says it will keep looking for the animals and will kill them if they’re found.

Saturday’s attack marks the third time since December a coyote has bitten a person in the Denver area.

SOURCE

Where is Andrew Romanoff?

February 22, 2009

Where is Andrew Romanoff seems to be the question floating around Colorado this past week. After all, this hopeless hopolophobe that is so deeply in bed with the purveyors of hatred from the mysandry wing of the Democrats surely had to be in line for a position with the obaminites. But? Nothing so far has come up on the political radar that I am aware of. Yet at least. Face the State addressed this missing person. Should the hate mongers put out an Amber Alert?

February 19, 2009

The Democrat golden boy who couldn’t go a day without seeing his name in the paper has suddenly fallen off the radar. Always thoughtful and quotable, it is no surprise he was the media’s go-to guy. It also helped that until getting term-limited last year, he was Speaker of the Colorado House.

The aftermath of the 2008 election was not kind to this Democrat. Overlooked for appointments to Secretary of State and the U.S. Senate, he has now now all but disappeared. While his named still makes it into the paper, it has lately been followed by “did not return calls for comment.” So we’re left asking: where is Andrew Romanoff?

Last week, the political publication Roll Call was first to report that Romanoff might challenge Colorado’s junior U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet. The story featured multiple Colorado-based sources, but a response from Romanoff was notably absent. This is not due to lack of trying, however, and the story included a quick note that read: “Romanoff could not be reached for comment Monday.”

Mike Saccone of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel was next to pick up on the rumor. He too tried to get in touch with Romanoff before blogging about Romanoff’s potential Senate bid. “We’ve reached out to the former Denver state lawmaker and will update you if and when we hear back from him,” Saccone wrote. Yet no update followed.

Perhaps Romanoff didn’t want to comment on the rumor because he isn’t ready, but that’s not the only media query he is avoiding. The Denver Post’s Jessica Fender wrote a story over the weekend about term-limited lawmakers traveling on the state’s dime. Romanoff approved three of the four trips featured in the story. Being the diligent journalist she is, Fender called Romanoff for comment. According to her story, he didn’t call her back.

The last time Face The State saw Romanoff was at his going away party in early January at the Capitol. He told us he has completed law school at the University of Denver (finally!) and is looking forward to taking some time off. Fair enough.

Perhaps he’s just busy studying for the bar?

SOURCE