All posts in Colorado

JIB JAB FOR COLORADO POLITICS: Eric Weissmann Releases Video Hitting Jared Polis On Insider Trading

by Admin on April 2, 2012 in Colorado, Crony Capitalism, Disfunctional Congress, Economy with No comments

by: ColoradoPeakPolitics

With videos as well done as this one, the insider trading allegations could become a defining attribute of the race. The charges are based, in part, on a book by investigative reporter Peter Schweizer.

Schweizer, author of the book “Throw Them All Out,” detailed how Polis was making substantial equity investments in Bridgehealth, a medical tourism company, while supporting the passage of Obamacare. Medical tourism will naturally benefit if the U.S. sees the rationing of care other countries have when healthcare is nationalized.

“Don’t worry Grandma, I know we can’t get you a knee replacement here, but you can get it in India AND see the Taj Mahal!”

Outside the world of Congress, personally financially benefiting from insider information is called “insider trading”…but in Congress there is no such prohibition.

Eric Weissmann realizes this race will be an uphill battle, and since YouTube is the second-largest search engine after Google, getting his messaging into that space is critical. If Weissmann continues to use this kind of thoughtful approach to his entire campaign, Jared Polis should be more than a little nervous about his reelection prospects.

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tancredo: One language will unify us

by Tom Tancredo on March 5, 2012 in Colorado, English Language Unity Act, Multi Culturalism, Tom Tancredo with No comments

By Tom Tancredo

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

I am constantly baffled by the contradictions among our cultural and media elites when it comes to proposals for establishing the English language as the official language of our nation. Although they admit the necessity of English proficiency for both educational and economic advancement, they habitually oppose any policy proposal to establish English as our national language.

No law can or should compel individuals to give up their native tongue, and no one is proposing to do that. Yet clearly, there are steps we can take to encourage acquisition of essential English language skills by immigrants and newcomers. That is what a bill in Congress, the English Language Unity Act, seeks to do. It requires that all official business of the federal government be conducted only in English.

A study sponsored by the Denver Public Library in the last five years found that about 75 percent of Hispanic families are bilingual at home. That should surprise no one. First-generation immigrant families have historically been bilingual, whether Italian, Ukranian, Vietnamese or Pakistani. The problem is not foreign languages spoken in private homes.

US states where English is an official language

US states where English is an official language

Increasingly, the problem is the lack of incentives for new arrivals to learn the English language while at the same time there is a proliferation and celebration of native languages and cultures in school classrooms and the popular media.

The fact is, the conduct of official government business in foreign languages — at the federal, state or local level — sends the wrong message to new immigrants, legal or illegal. That practice tells new arrivals it is OK to retain your native tongue and postpone learning English. The message is: “We will accommodate you.” That is a message previous generations of immigrants did not hear, and it is a message that undermines and obstructs assimilation.

Why should any foreign national — whether tourist, foreign student, business traveler, or immigrant — be offended by the requirement that they conduct official government business in English? What other country of the world makes it so easy not to learn the native tongue? Can you do business with the Mexican government without learning Spanish or using a translator? Can you do government business in Poland while speaking Spanish? Can you do government business in France while speaking Farsi?

Countries where English is an official or de f...

Countries where English is an official or de facto official language

The proposed federal law would affect only official federal government business and government documents, not private businesses or other institutions. Banks, auto dealers and other commercial enterprises would still be free to advertise and do business in other languages if they choose, and customers are free to patronize those businesses or not. That’s freedom of association and freedom of choice.

Government business is a different matter entirely. Conducting official government business in foreign languages makes no sense except as a pandering to the cult of multiculturalism.

Everybody understands that lack of English language skills is a major barrier to the social and economic advancement of immigrants, yet proposals to promote this goal are routinely slandered as “xenophobic.” A true xenophobe would want to hold foreign-born individuals back, not help them move forward with additional incentives for learning English.

In the political arena, is it not contradictory to require naturalized citizens to pass an English language exam but then offer bilingual ballots for the act of voting? Such a policy strongly implies that the English language exam for citizenship is only symbolic, not substantial. But how can new citizens participate fully in debates and discussions about issues and candidates if they really can’t read, write or speak English? Providing a ballot in a foreign language sends a confusing and hypocritical message: “We want your vote, but not your participation.” A mailed-in foreign language ballot is about as American as a Yugo assembled in Brazil.

No one law can fix this problem, but the federal government can set a good example. The English Language Unity Act is a good first step.

Tom Tancredo is a former congressman from Colorado.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama Portrait Will Remain Ahead of George Washington’s in State Capitol Gallery

by Admin on February 23, 2012 in Colorado, Obama Propaganda with 1 Comment

Via: The Colorado Observer

DENVER, CO – Barack Obama may rank his presidency as the fourth-best in history, but John Hickenlooper is putting Obama first.

The original, chronologically correct placement of the Obama portrait in May 2011, before it was moved to precede the portrait of George Washington (Grand Junction Sentinel, RealPolitik image)

President Obama’s portrait was placed before that of George Washington when the paintings were moved in January to the first floor of the state capitol in anticipation of the dome renovation project. Oil paintings of each president have hung since 1982 in the Gallery of Presidents in the third-floor capitol rotunda.

On Wednesday, the capitol property manager told The Colorado Observer that the placement was a mistake and that the Obama portrait would soon be moved to the end of the row. The next day, however, Kevin Patterson, the governor’s deputy chief of staff, said the Obama portrait would remain ahead of Washington’s.

“The intent was to have the current president and the first president together,” Patterson told The Colorado Observer.

The current placement of the Obama portrait, ahead of George Washington and America’s other presidents

The decision to hang the Obama portrait first represents a shift in policy for the gallery. Prior to the move, every president’s portrait was hung in chronological order, including that of Obama, whose portrait was unveiled in May 2011.

The original, chronologically correct placement of the Obama portrait in May 2011, before it was moved to precede the portrait of George Washington (Grand Junction Sentinel, RealPolitik image)
At the time it was hung in the rotunda, Obama’s portrait appeared last in the sequence, near those of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, as shown in a May 2, 2011, photo on the Grand Junction Sentinel site: http://www.gjsentinel.com/blogs/realpolitik/P15/

Not everyone is thrilled with the decision to put Number 44 ahead of Number One. Republican state Sen. Greg Brophy said he was “shocked and outraged.”

“Unbelievable,” said Brophy. “I just can’t get over it. They just rewrite the rules to suit their own agenda and put their interests above tradition. I can’t help but feel that if the president was one George W. Bush, they wouldn’t be considering this.”

There is enough space for Obama at the end of the row. A portrait-sized gap sits next to the portrait of George W. Bush, and appears to have been reserved for the Obama painting.

In fact, said Patterson, that’s not the case. The private company that hung the portraits accidentally counted Grover Cleveland twice and made space for 44 presidents, instead of 43, he said.

The current placement of the Obama portrait, ahead of George Washington and America’s other presidents
Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, making him both the 22rd and the 24th president, but the Gallery of Presidents includes just one Cleveland painting.

“When they did the math, they realized that Grover Cleveland had one portrait. So that’s why the space is at the end,” said Patterson.

Obama made headlines in December when he said in an interview with Steve Kroft of CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes” that his administration’s achievements surpassed those of all but three American presidents: Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. No mention was made of Washington.

“The issue here is not going to be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president–with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R. and Lincoln–just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do,” said Obama.

The interview generated an outcry from conservative bloggers because the statement was edited from the program’s Dec. 11 on-air broadcast, although it was included in the full interview posted on the network’s website.

Feb., 22 The Colorado Observer

DENVER, CO – Move over, George. When it comes to presidents, Barack Obama is numero uno, at least at the Colorado State Capitol.

The capitol’s famed Wall of Presidents has traditionally hung portraits of the U.S. presidents in order of their service, but now Obama’s portrait hangs before that of George Washington, even though historians would agree that Washington was the first president of the United States.

The switch happened after the portraits were moved in January from the rotunda, which is undergoing a renovation as part of the capitol dome renovation, to the first floor.

Obama’s elevation has resulted in some grumbling among legislators and staffers, at least on the Republican side, who say the placement shows a lack of respect, not to mention an inaccurate understanding of history.

“This is so wrong! And so chronologically incorrect,” said one Republican staffer.

Richard Lee, property manager of Capitol Complex, which handles the capitol’s maintenance, said the portraits were moved by a private contractor, not state employees. The contractor employs a curator to oversee the project, which included the cleaning of the portraits.

The empty space where the Obama portrait is “supposed to be” according to Capitol Complex management

“These portraits are too valuable for us to handle,” said Lee.

He said he didn’t realize what had happened until he received calls from capitol employees. After taking a look, he agreed that there is a space next to George W. Bush, who preceded Obama, that appears large enough to accommodate the Obama portrait.

“As I understand it, they miscalculated the size of the hanging areas,” said Lee. “I think they’re going to go back and put it [the Obama portrait] where it’s supposed to be.”

The capitol dome renovation, which officially begins in the spring, is expected to take three years at a cost of $12 million. The legislature approved $4 million for the project in 2011, with private donors slated to contribute the balance. The Colorado Preservation Inc. has launched a campaign, Share in the Care Colorado, to raise funds for the project.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Even Santorum’s Backers Stunned By His Colorado Victory

by Admin on February 8, 2012 in Colorado, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, Tom Tancredo with No comments

DENVER (CBS4) – Rick Santorum hopes to capitalize on his Colorado victory. He took 40 percent of the vote in Tuesday night’s caucus.

Mitt Romney finished with 35 percent and Newt Gingrich ran a distant third.

Based on the polls going into the caucus, Santorum’s showing in Colorado was quite a surprise. It was definitely a disappointing night for Romney, but not quite disastrous.

While Santorum won rural counties such as El Paso, Teller, Larimer and Weld. They trend conservative regardless of the candidate. It’s the swing counties that are telling for November. Romney won counties that included battlegrounds such as Arapahoe and Jefferson.

Still, in a race that continues to have one unexpected twist after another, it was the wildest night yet. Even Santorum’s backers were stunned by his Colorado victory.

“I kept saying, ‘I think we’re going to come in a strong second here in Colorado,’ you know, hoping. And I was going to call that a win,” former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo said.

Tancredo says Santorum did what Romney couldn’t — appeal to the hardcore conservatives in the state — the type that turns out for caucuses. It’s a group that’s membership has changed since the last time Romney was on a ballot in Colorado.

The Tea Party has emerged since 2008, when ironically Romney was the conservative in the race.

Former Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams says Romney underestimated their pull.

“I think Colorado Republicans sent a clear message to Mitt Romney last night that they want more of Rick Santorum in candidacy,” Wadhams said. “I don’t think it was an outright rejection of Mitt Romney.”

Romney may have also miscalculated the impact of being the “establishment” candidate in a state that doesn’t like to be told who to vote for.

“You have to be very judicious in applying the endorsements,” longtime Repulican political consultant Walt Klein said.

Klein said in contrast Santorum was seen as the “grassroots” candidate.

“He seemed to be every place, every day. He hit all the right bastions,” Klein said.

The question now is if he can capitalize on it. As momentum shifts, so do the attacks.

“We’ll see to what extent he can withstand the onslaught of negative advertising that will come,” Tancredo said.

After all, Romney has the organization and the bank account and his loss wasn’t a death blow. In fact, the longer Santorum’s candidacy stays alive the easier for Romney to conquer and divide.

“Mitt Romney’s going to be a better nominee having to fight for this nomination,” Wadhams said.

While Romney needs the conservative base in the counties where Santorum won, every Republican CBS4 Political Specialist Shaun Boyd talked to says if he’s the nominee they will fall in line behind him. Their goal is to beat President Obama.

Still, it’s certainly a wake-up call for Romney.

Santorum’s campaign received more than $250,000 in donations since Tuesday night’s sweep.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tancredo backs Looper in primary

by Admin on January 24, 2012 in Colorado, RINO's, Tom Tancredo with No comments

Via: Colorado Srings Gazzette

Former Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, known across the state as the GOP general in the fight against illegal immigration, has endorsed Marsha Looper in her campaign for HD 19.

Looper, a Republican state representative from Calhan, is battling House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, R-Monument, in a primary for the district, in one of the most anticipated campaigns this election cycle.

Tancredo’s endorsement is a big deal for Looper. He is still an icon to grassroots conservatives, and his name carries significant weight.

Tancredo, who served in Congress from 1999 to 2009, founded the illegal immigration caucus in Congress, and became a national leader on the issue. He ran for president in 2008 and for governor in 2010, but lost both times.

Colorado state representative Marsha Looper

Marsha Looper

Tancredo called Looper the “most conservative candidate in the HD 19 race,” and said she’s a “committed to guarding our borders and ensuring workers are in Colorado legally.

“Illegal immigration is one of our nation’s most serious issues, and Marsha is a proven conservative leader with the experience to fight for our safety and security,” Tancredo said in the statement.

The Stephens campaign responded with vigor. Spokesman Dustin Olson downplayed Tancredo’s support, and said it doesn’t reflect on Looper’s record.

Olson pointed to Looper’s statement last March that she would support civil unions for homosexual couples — which she later retracted — and a controversial 2008 bill to streamline a federal program to keep track of non-citizen farm workers. Many Republicans opposed the bill.

“Marsha Looper was the first to support Tancredo for governor but that doesn’t negate Marsha Looper’s support for civil unions or Marsha Looper’s guest worker program with Mexico that opens the door for illegal immigration,” Olson charged.

Tancredo is not the first big-name Republican to throw his name into the race. Attorney General John Suthers, who is from El Paso County, has endorsed Stephens.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Shock! Colorado Reapportionment Commission chooses Dem map

by Admin on November 29, 2011 in Colorado with No comments

Colorado State Reapportionment members select and vote for the last-minute proposal of Democrat members.

DENVER — The Mile High City is getting higher all the time.

by Admin on July 5, 2011 in Colorado with 1 Comment

Critic cuts through haze on Denver’s medical marijuana beat

The Daily: BY JUSTIN ROCKET SILVERMAN TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2011

There are now more medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver than there are Starbucks. Glossy guidebooks list nearly 300 locations where Colorado’s 125,000 residents who have been prescribed medical marijuana can get their “medicine.” Many offer a free joint to new customers, allowing them to sample exotic strains like Jah Kush, Golden Goat and RomulanCotton Candy.

Local smokers even have a professional critic to help them navigate the gauntlet of bongs, pipes and vaporizers, or make that essential choice between Super Silver Haze and Purple Passion.

The critic’s pen name is William Breathes; he keeps his real identity secret to ensure he gets the same treatment as any other patient.

His weekly weed purchase is paid for by the Denver Westword, the popular alternative weekly that hired Breathes after its editors realized they were serving one of the most stoned readerships in America.

“It’s a fun new writing area,” Westword editor Patricia Calhoun told The Daily, “and if your publication prides itself on doing strong cultural coverage of art, theater and food, then why not do pot, too?”

Unlike his fellow smokers, Breathes does not follow his puffs with a Pauly Shore marathon or prolonged mediation over the contents of his pantry.

Instead, he powers up his desktop and crafts a detailed review of both the grass and the medical marijuana dispensary that sold it to him. A recent review, for example, reads:

The Platinum Purps had an orange-rind tartness to it, which would have gone great with the sticky-sweet smell of Tangerine Haze. There was also a solid Triple-D, very floral Flo, and some well done Trainwreck renamed Charlie Sheen, appropriately enough. Other more unique strains out of Scott’s coco mix garden, including Scott’s Blue, the Tange and the Face Wreck Haze, smelled so good I wanted to make a potpourri bowl out of them for my office.

An experienced journalist who used to cover local politics, and so passionate about weed culture that he got a friend at the phone company to give him a number that ends in “420,” Breathes was the ideal fit for this new niche.

With 15 other states and Washington, D.C., now allowing some use of medical marijuana, Breathes is also tackles the ongoing political battles around the drug as medicine.

When, earlier this year, the Colorado Legislature was considering a bill to crack down on driving under the influence by pot smokers, Breathes had a blood analysis done to show that he was three times over the proposed legal limit, even after not smoking all day and being pronounced sober by a doctor.

The bill did not pass.

“Yes, it’s a great gig,” he explained. “But, and this is something only other journalists really get, it’s still a job. Yeah, I smoke weed, but I still have to write, and I have to meet deadlines, and I still have editors … If I don’t take it seriously, I’ll be fired.”

Justin.Silverman@thedaily.com

State senator wants voters to consider $1.63 billion tax hike

by Admin on February 28, 2011 in Colorado, Taxation with No comments

Eli Stokols Political Reporter

5:05 p.m. MST, February 28, 2011

kdvr-heath-wants-voters-to-consider-163-billion-tax-hike-20110228

DENVER — Sen. Rollie Heath announced Monday that he plans to file a ballot initiative that would let voters decide whether or not to enact a three-year tax increase that would put an estimated $1.63 billion back in state coffers.

Heath, D-Boulder, is proposing to raise the state’s income tax from 4.63 percent currently to 5 percent, and to increase sales tax from 2.9 percent currently to 3.0 percent. Both increases would take effect January 1, 2012 and last for only three years.

Heath decided to move forward with the proposal after Gov. John Hickenlooper’s 2012 budget proposal called for $1.1 billion in cuts, including $375 in cuts to K-12 education spending.

Last week’s results of a DU analysis of Colorado’s long-term financial forecast, which concluded that revenues will not recover enough to cover the state’s growing expenditures, only added fuel to Heath’s fire.

–more–

Colorado ‘Amazon tax’ unconstitutional?

by Admin on January 28, 2011 in Colorado with No comments

Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
Friday, January 28th at 1:00PM EST
6 Comments
[UPDATE: 'Amazon tax laws,' for those who are wondering, represent attempts to get around a Supreme Court ruling regarding out-of-state transactions. Residents of states who have a sales tax are theoretically expected to pay sales tax on all transactions, not just ones that take place in-state: however, vendors with out-of-state customers have long taken the position that trying to keep track of every jurisdiction's sales tax rules is an undue burden upon them. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that vendors are only required to track and collect sales tax on transactions for states where they had a physical presence. This effectively means that online retailers such as Amazon.com are effectively released from the burden of collecting sales tax information. Various Democratic state legislators - blanching at the very idea of trying to enforce individual residents from reporting their online transactions for taxation purposes - have attempted to make an end run around this ruling by writing legislation declaring in-state affiliates of online retailers as counting in terms of 'physical location:' Amazon's typical response is to immediately cancel all affiliate programs in the targeted state, thus eliminating any need for them to collect sales tax information.]
–more–