The Voice of Liberty

Last week was significant both nationally and here in Colorado. Nationally, the president came out of the closet in favor of civil unions. No real surprise there. In North Carolina, an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman passed by 61% of the vote, making that state the 31st state to affirm traditional marriage.
Here in Colorado the legislative session expired with a civil unions bill left unpassed by the House. Thirty bills were in fact left hanging at the end of the session but homosexual activists and the media focused on that one bill. Democrat Governor Hickenlooper wasted no time in calling for a special session to consider civil unions, reportedly “emotional” as he made the announcement.
Is all this coincidence? I think not.
Here in Colorado, homosexual activists Tim Gill, Pat Stryker and Jared Polis bankroll the activities of the Democrat Party. How much is hard to say but if you read The Blueprint, you are left with the impression that the Gang of Four (the above three plus Rutt Bridges) bought Colorado for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008.
Hickenlooper and the Democrats owe them.
In 2006, despite Democrat gains in the legislature, Amendment 43 specifying marriage as between only one man and one woman passed with a 55% vote. Referendum I, to establish domestic partnerships, failed at 47%.
In Colorado, amendments and initiatives are suggested by the people and petitioners must gather signatures. Referenda are referred by the legislature and only need to be passed by them. In 2006 both methods were used and the result was clear.
What is happening now is simple: Having failed at the ballot box and despite knowing that the majority of Coloradans do not favor same-sex unions, the Democrats—beholden to the homosexual lobby for funding—are trying to ram it through in a special session of the legislature.
Never mind that it is really not an issue of equity or fairness: two members of the same sex are free to enter into any contract or make any agreement that married couples can. It is about nothing less than securing legal recognition of “gay marriage.” The proposed bill makes that clear in all but name.
The Republican leadership in the House has been singularly inept in killing the civil unions bill in the regular session, missing two good chances in committee. Speaker McNulty and Majority Leader Stephens may have thought they had finally succeeded when the session ended but then the issue became a national one and Hickenlooper took up the standard from the Obama campaign…or was told to.
Rumors from the capitol indicate that McNulty and Stephens were trying to play both sides: to not antagonize or perhaps even cultivate the homosexual lobby while at the same time planning to eventually kill the bill and look good to their own side in the process.
It looks like they were a little too clever for their own good (and ours) but the jury is still out. The special session convenes Monday the 14th. There are rallies at the capitol. If you can’t go, pray for success.

This video is going viral: when someone first sent me the link it had 60,000 hits on YouTube; a week later it has 1.7 million!

You've probably heard all about it this week: how those mean Republicans don't want to keep your student loans at artificially low interest rates and you'll end up paying $1000 per year more.

Except that both the premise and the "facts" in that statement are all lies. The interest rates go up only for new loans; you're not paying on those loans until years into the future and then the increase is around $7 per month--that's just under $100 per year, not a thousand. The facts are well reported by Emily Miller in the Washington Times.

There was a time when presidents actually told the truth, instead of making things up--and when they didn't, the press held them accountable.

Perhaps the most shocking soundbite I heard from Obama went like this: "They don't care about you. All they care about is your loan..."

The irresponsibility and pandering of that statement is shocking.

At first I thought that this was simply more of Obama's anti-capitalist rhetoric: those mean capitalists don't care about you, only their money. But then I realized: Obama nationalized student loans in 2009. It's not greedy capitalists who are to blame. It must be...him? No, no, that's too logical. It's the Republicans. Of course.

Our liberties and rights to life, liberty and property depend on one thing: the rule of law. Your property is not safe if the law doesn't back up your rights. That why we have contract law and eminent domain--the right of the state to appropriate your property for public purposes--was, until recently, very limited.

If you break your contract, the law is there to enforce it. What Obama is implying is that the contract doesn't matter: caring about you matters and if you can't pay back your loan, it should be forgiven.

This should come as no surprise. Obama broke the contracts the auto companies had with their share and bond holders and gave the companies to the unions.

But it should send a chill down your spine. Obama signals that your property rights don't matter. The state will plunder your property through taxes or outright confiscation and, in the name of "fairness," award the property to whoever they want votes from.

Looks like they're on a roll in the State Senate. On Thursday the 19th, the Senate passed the 2012-13 state budget, a fiscally responsible agreement, with overwhelming bipartisan support.

“This is only the second budget I have voted for in my time in the General Assembly,” said Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs. “We have restored money into the emergency TABOR reserve, reinstated the senior property tax exemption and enacted a permanent 1% cut from the personnel budgets of most departments. This is a fiscally sound budget that Republicans can support.”

Joint Budget Committee member, Senator Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, said “We can be proud of this year’s budget. We reduced the size of government while protecting funding for K-12 and higher education.”

The 2012-13 budget includes several Republican priorities, such as:

Saving for the future:
· Balances to the most conservative revenue forecast
· Maintains a 4% statutory reserve
· Increases liquid assets in the constitutional emergency TABOR reserve by $13 million
· Sets aside $100 million in the State Education Fund, a savings account for K-12

Funding education:
· Fully funds K-12 education on a per-student basis
· Funds the implementation of the Educator Effectiveness program, which will link teacher promotions and salaries to student academic growth
· Fully reverses the Governor’s proposed cuts to the Higher Education Colorado Opportunity Fund (COF) stipends to last year’s level and helps reduce student tuition costs

Reducing the size of government:
· Immediately reduces the excess capacity in the state’s prison system by closing one facility and funds an independent study to reduce excess capacity and costs in the future.
· Cuts 1% from the personnel budgets of most departments. Public safety personnel are exempt.
· Cuts 171.7 personnel positions

Begins the reversal of the policy of raiding cash funds and other budgeting gimmicks of the past:
· Restores all $46.8 million of severance tax funding to counties and major water projects.
· Reverses part of the “payday shift” enacted in 2003 that was used to artificially push payroll into the next fiscal year.
· Begins the process of ending the policy of tapping cash funds to pay for general fund spending.

The El Paso County delegation was not properly represented by their elected Party Officer according to El Paso County GOP Bylaws at the Colorado State Assembly.  They were instead represented by an appointee acting de facto, carrying out the responsibilities of the elected officer(s).

In short, Eli Bremer, County Chairman was away on business and he gave control of party business to the party's appointed COO Bill Roy, even though party Vice Chair David Williams was present throughout the assembly.

That might not have presented too much of a problem except that there was an issue over seating alternates.

At the appointed time, Alternate Delegates were called to fill vacant seats. Some primary delegates showed up quite late but were seated anyway.  The Alternates were unseated as Delegates and told they could not vote.

I don't know who the delegates were or who made the relevant decisions, but the credentialing rules are pretty specific: you snooze, you lose.

I understand there is an attempt to meet and get to the bottom of the issue.