Senator Schultheis

False Campaign Attack on Rep. Marsha Looper

2012-02-19T08:41:00.000-07:00

This...from a good conservative friend, Al Maurer:

Fraud Alert: Colorado Liberty Alliance

By All Maurer:

I received a full color flyer in the mail Saturday from an organization calling itself the

Colorado Liberty Alliance. In fact, it turns out to be neither for Liberty nor an Alliance. It
is like the fake Tea Party set up in Florida by ultra-leftist Alan Grayson.

The flyer was an attack on state Representative Marsha Looper, claiming that she
supports amnesty for illegal aliens. It confuses the idea of a guest worker program with
amnesty and heavy-handedly tries to use a six-word snippet from Tom Tancredo--who
supports Rep. Looper--to make it appear that he opposes her.

Regardless, the real question for me is: who is the Colorado Liberty Alliance and why

would they be sending out such a flyer?

It turns out that the Alliance is none other than Patrick Davis, Colorado Springs political
consultant. The Articles of Incorporation list Patrick as the agent and sole director. In
other words, there is no alliance, only Patrick. We might more properly call this organization "Colorado Liberty" except that liberty, too, is missing.

There is a website associated with the mailer and the reader is urged to go there for
more information. The website is registered blindly by a proxy service, but the site itself
admits to being run by the Colorado Liberty Alliance. It is nothing more than the same
material as on the flyer. No "About Us" page, no "Contact Us" information, no "Who We Are"
page that lists who is in this organization and what they do. Of course there isn't:
remember, it's just Patrick.

Patrick, who I've never known to be associated with the Liberty movement, and who
knows so little of it that he doesn't understand that immigration is not a major concern.
Why would any Liberty group spend money to advocate a candidate's position on
immigration issues? It has never been done.

To give Patrick his due, he's a campaign consultant. He doesn't go out creating
websites and sending out flyers on his own. He is paid to do this. By who? Clearly, no
one in the Colorado Liberty movement. Who then might stand to gain?

To recap: a political operative forms a secretive non-profit to attack a conservative State
Representative. It sounds like something straight out of the Democrat Bluprint: Create aname that makes you sound bigger and more important than you really are: another
typical leftist trick. The Symbionese Liberation Army, the Baader-Meinhof Brigade and

now the Colorado Liberty Alliance.

This is the work of cowards. It is despicable. It has no place in conservative politics.

Response to Colorado Springs Gazette's Editorial on Resistance to Republican Fundraising Gala

2011-11-12T17:32:00.000-07:00

Today’s Colorado Springs Gazette had an article, authored by its editorial page editor, Wayne Laugesen in the “Our View” section, entitled GROVER NORQUIST IS NOT A JIHADIST, in which he directly calls out Senator Lambert and me as promoting a boycott of tonight’s El Paso County Republican fundraising Gala and implying that we are extremists within the Party. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Both Sen. Lambert and I strongly support the Republican Party, and in particular, the El Paso County Republican Party, but only insofar as its leadership adheres to and supports the core Principles of the Party to which we have both worked so hard for more than 15 years (cumulatively) to promote and defend. That said, we are very troubled by the direction that the EPCRP has moved since its Chairman Eli Bremer was marginally elected by the Republican Central Committee, as its Chairman earlier this year. Since then, true conservatives, including TeaPartiers/912ers and other similar groups have been made to feel marginalized by a chairman who exhibits more interest in being big-tent driven than Principle driven.

Over the recent decades, the Republican Party elites have drifted further and further from strong advocacy of Republican Principles of Limited Government, Free Enterprise, etc., in their vain quest for greater numbers. Ironically, this drift has significantly reduced the enthusiasm as well as the fundraising ability of the Party. Countering that has been the dramatic rise in the number of Liberty Groups across the country and within Colorado spurred on by the outrage of many conservatives who have either left the Republican Party mentally or through change in Party registration and have determined to work outside the Party structure, to support only conservative candidates and to challenge non-principle-driven “republicans” in future Primaries with conservative candidates.

Most Republican elites do not understand that a battle is raging for the heart and soul of the Republican Party nationally and locally in an effort to bring the Party back to its Principles. I believe this battle is necessary, unfortunately, to bring our Party back to its roots. Unfortunately, too many Party leaders believe that strong adherence to Principle is counterproductive to the goal of winning elections. In my view, and that of the Liberty groups, nothing could be further from the truth. A Party that puts Principle on the back burner in order to win elections is tacitly conveying that the Party’s Principles are not valid or at least not valid for everyone…that we need to pander to special interest groups to gain their support. Such a view undermines the Republican image and eventually leads to a Party that appears to stand for nothing. Most conservatives would not say that the Republican Party “stands for nothing,” but over the past decades has been moving fast in that direction, as it seems unconcerned with vetting Precinct Leaders, Division Leaders or Republican Candidates for City, County, State or Federal political offices. “Warm bodies may apply.” One only has to look at the Colorado Union of Taxpayers’ annual scorecard to identify “republicans” who too often ignore, among others, the Party’s limited government and free-market principles. Chief among those low-scoring Republicans last session were the House’s Speaker and Majority Leader, with scores of 39% and 50% respectively. This is what we call leadership?

Instead of initiating attempts to bring the Party back to adherence to its Principle, the Party’s leadership attempts to marginalize them as “extremists”, “dividers,” and “trouble-makers” and remove them from influence. Such has been the case with all the Liberty groups as well as certain individuals, including Sen. Lambert and me. Today’s Gazette’s editorial states the fact that the El Paso Republican vote is key to winning the state for the next Republican President. Indeed, that is true,, but where Wayne Laugesen, in his editorial goes wrong is by implying that the difficulty with achieving that goal lies with the those who are attempting to call the party back to its Principles, rather than challenging the Party’s leadership to urge for adherence to them by all candidates and to do so at all political functions between now and the election. Failure to move in this direction will continue to alienate those in the growing Liberty movement. Should this lead to a poor showing for Republican candidates, that failure will rest on the shoulders of the Party’s leadership and not the conservative grass-roots. Criticizing those who truly believe in conservative Principles will only be counter-productive to that effort and any loss will rest on their shoulders.

Attempting to silence, ignore or marginalize those attempting to identify poor judgment by Republican leadership should not be ignored. Inviting a speaker with dangerous alliances to a Republican fundraising gala is one of those troubling decisions. When confronting Mr. Bremer on Thursday evening’s radio program, KLZ560am… “the Source”, Frank Gaffney, after submitting several troubling examples of Grover Norquist’s alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, offered to come to El Paso County to discuss the matter in person and to show him the facts. You can hear that broadcast here. Eli Bremer didn’t accept that offer. One only can wonder “why.?”

Republicans Must Embrace Liberty Message

2011-03-16T12:11:00.000-06:00

by Rich Bratten, Executive Director, Republican Study Committee of Colorado

There are some core principles that unify many of the various “grass roots” groups (TEA Party, 9/12, Liberty, Gadsden, Libertarian, etc.), which I submit would include 1) a commitment to a limited, Constitutional role for government that, 2) protects individual liberty and encourages personal responsibility, 3) a commitment to a free market economy that is not strangled by government regulation or distorted by government intervention, and 4) fiscal responsibility in the fulfillment of government’s limited role. Interestingly, these are some of the principles of the Republican Party as well. This is why all of these groups should be able to find common ground in these areas.

One of the biggest problems that we face today as a state, and as a nation, is that many in the Republican Party either do not truly understand these principles, resulting in the ever-increasing misapplication of government, or else they are willing to forgo them for political gain.

While the tag-line of both political parties today is “jobs, jobs, jobs”, the reality is that not only is this not the role of Colorado government (a word search of the Colorado Constitution confirms that job creation is nowhere to be found), but government, in general, is not designed for, nor is it compete

Publish Post

nt at, “creating jobs.” While our state government could help create an environment that is more conducive to job creation by lowering the regulatory and tax burden on the private sector, protecting personal liberty and property rights, and establishing the fiscal, judicial and statutory stability that businesses need in order to be able to make plans for the future so that capital will be attracted toward investment here, our government does not “create jobs.”

Government interventionist policies disrupt free markets by distorting the signaling mechanism known as “price” so as to create what is commonly called malinvestment – a concept developed in the Austrian school of economic thought (Von Mises, Hayek, etc.) One need look no further than the housing boom and bust that we have recently experienced to see an example of how government and regulatory intervention (in the form of artificially low interest rates, socially driven housing policy, and tax incentives) created malinvestment by propping up something to be more valuable than it really is.

Our political representatives may be well acquainted with the politics of “job creation”, but they seem to be quite behind the curve when it comes to the meaning of a “free market economy” and the role of government. Government intervention in the market for the well intentioned benefit of the common good by allegedly “creating jobs” is misguided at best, and destructive in the end.

What’s even worse, and more insidious, is the path that this mindset of government economic intervention leads us upon. Friedrich A. Hayek wrote, “That the government which claims to plan economic life soon asserts its totalitarian character is no accident — it can do nothing less if it wants to remain true to the intention of planning. Economic life is not a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the administration of the means for all our different ends. Whoever takes charge of these means must determine which ends shall be served; which values are to be rated higher and which lower — in short, what men should believe and strive for.” [“What Price a Planned Economy?”]

This is not an exaggerated concern. Today’s version of statist policy clothes itself with a combination of euphemistic public policy goals. Especially prevalent is the go-to statist formula of “environmentalism” + “job creation” = “green economy.”

Want to score some political points? Simply create a government intervention into the free markets to “incentivize” some portion of the “green economy”. Throw in some funding by “gifts, grants and donations,” perhaps a little TIF (Tax Incremental Financing, which allows government to issue debt to be repaid by the future anticipated tax revenue increases expected to be brought about by their latest intervention), toss some direct tax-incentives to specific industries to encourage participation, and then of course, liberally apply for “federal money” because it’s just sitting there waiting to be spent and if we don’t do it someone else will, and voila – you have just done something noble and beneficial for everyone by helping the environment and creating jobs (not).

Now, if you’re a Democrat and you just read that last paragraph thinking, “sounds good,” that’s to be expected. A true classical education, complete with critical thinking, will be required. If you’re a Republican and you think that this sounds good, you need intervention. This is the type of Republican (non) thinking that has spawned the current liberty movement!

Republicans must wake up to the principles that are woven through the various patches of fabric that make up today’s liberty movement. Republicans must awaken their commitment to a limited, Constitutional role for government that protects individual liberty and encourages personal responsibility. Republicans must maintain a commitment to a free market economy that is not strangled by government regulation or distorted by government intervention. And Republicans must be committed to fiscal responsibility in the fulfillment of government’s limited role. Anything less would deny the message of today’s liberty movement.

Recent Audit of Weatherization Assistance Program shows severe lack of controls--- Program should be eliminated

2010-11-10T17:42:00.000-07:00

Like nearly every other government program…once begun, they never go away, always grow, and become vehicles to redistribute wealth, (Robin Hood style) forcibly taking from those that have…and giving to those who don’t. Such programs begin by "compassionate" legislators…and with no thought as confining their efforts only to the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress. The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) is a case in point.

Following the 1973 oil crisis and rising utility bills, Congress initiated the WAP to install insulation, seal around doors and windows and modernize heating equipment. In 1992, Colorado took on this federal program as a funding partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy (providing a non-enumerated function) the Colorado Low Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) (a Federal Program not enumerated in the Constitution) and the Public Service Co. of CO (now Xcel Energy).

As part of the $1.6Billion in Federal Recovery Act funds received by Colorado, $79.5 million must rapidly be “spent” to weatherize large numbers of homes within a short 33-month period beginning June 15, 2009. Prior to this large influx of Federal funds, the program focused on emergency and temporary measures, such as covering windows with plastic sheets and caulking and weather-stripping doors and windows. Today, the program requires every home “served” (the state, as you know is now a “service agency”) under the program to determine which energy conservation measures will be most cost-effective before weatherization services are provided. Furthermore, instead of the previous not-to-exceed expense dwelling of $3,000, the new federal regulations allow up to $6,600/dwelling and substantially increase the income threshold for residents to qualify.

The Audit pointed out lack of accountability by the Governor Ritter’s Energy Office in administering the program, “for free” to over 8,000 homes since 2009, among which were:

· Noncompetitive procurement
· Rejection of bidders before holding required public hearings
· Inconsistency in scoring competitive bids
· Lack of procurement documentation
· Failure to hold agencies throughout the state accountable for administering the program
· Inadequate monitoring of work to ensure it was even performed.
· Poor accounting for cash advances to agencies performing work
· Performing work on properties where landlord does not qualify.
· Reports to Federal Energy Office submitted w/o Director’s approval. As required.
· No definition as to what types of costs are administrative or program operations.
· No assurance was given that we are not providing services to those illegally in the U.S. or performing some weatherization work by illegal aliens.

Senator Schultheis Pulls Endorsement for Dan Maes

2010-10-22T19:16:00.000-06:00

Today, I am removing my endorsement of Dan Maes for Governor of Colorado. This has been the most difficult decision I have made during my 10 years in the legislature. After interviewing Dan last November over three separate occasions totaling over eight hours, I made the decision to endorse him, believing that he was the most conservative candidate running. Eight hours is a long time to interview a single candidate, but I believed that was necessary in order for me to endorse a candidate for such an important position.

After winning the party’s nomination, it was extremely troubling to see the Colorado’s Republican Party virtually refuse to assist him in important areas, such as campaign organization, campaign finance rules and in acquiring proper campaign financing. It is totally understandable, in my view that party’s nominee would and should hold firm to that nomination and expect cooperation and full support from not only Republican officials throughout the state, but also Republicans voters. Had Dan Maes had such support, I believe he would have won handily over Denver Mayor, John Hickenlooper. Unfortunately that was not the case; rather the reverse was true.

It has been my goal to be a consistently-strong and principled conservative Republican because I truly believe that the Republican Principles, if followed by all those who alien themselves with the Republican Party are the best in the long-term for Colorado and for America. Far too many “Republican” legislators over the years lost focus on those principles and voted to allow damaging, progressive bills to pass. During my tenure, I have worked hard to set an example of how one can hold fast to the fiscal and moral principles as found in the Party’s platform and still remain standing.

While I still believe that Dan Maes would stand tall for all those principles Republicans hold dear, it is evident that as a result of the negative campaigning and negative talk-radio bashing of this man., his poll numbers have slid to the point where the race is now only between Tancredo and Hickenlooper. Just this week, the largest TeaParty group in Colorado endorsed Tancredo, further reducing Maes’ base support and adding further justification to the withdrawal of my support for Dan Maes.

Much is at stake in this election, including the appointment of Supreme Court justices who will honor the law, decennial redistricting of State legislative boundaries, stopping the union takeover of state jobs, reducing the serious and negative effect of illegal immigration, the potential of modifying state statutes to allow the Republican Party to regain its majority status should it get less than 10% of the total gubernatorial votes, and much, much more. Furthermore, should Hickenlooper win, Colorado will become a far more progressive state than it has already become over the past decade. That must not be allowed that to happen.

I realize that by removing my endorsement from Dan Maes that I am also disappointing many strong conservative supporters who have applauded me for standing not just for Dan, but for the election process which I hold dear. Those who have worked so diligently for the conservative cause under the Republican banner will have the most trouble with my decision, as I have always advocated that the process must be honored because in the long-run, lack of adhering to process causes confusion, lack of commitment and frustration. Unfortunately, that process has been trashed in this election cycle. That saddens me greatly.

That said…the choice is now between Hickenlooper and Tancredo. Hickenlooper must be defeated. Therefore, I will be voting for Tom Tancredo as Colorado’s next Governor.

My November 2010 voting recommendations with respect to Colorado's ballot issues

2010-10-13T12:15:00.001-06:00

State Legislature-Referred Constitutional Amendments (“Referendums”)

Yes on Amendment P: Moves Regulation of Bingo and Raffle Games of Chance from the Secretary of State to the Department of Revenue, which currently regulates most gambling activities.

Yes on Amendment Q: Establishes a process for moving the seat of state government to a temporary location during a declared disaster emergency.

Yes on Amendment R: Eliminates property taxes for individuals or businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit worth $6,000 or less in market value.

Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments (“Initiatives”)

Yes on Amendment 60: Phases in a reduction of Property Taxes paid by individuals and businesses by 50% over a ten-year period.

Yes on Amendment 61: Places common-sense restrictions on Government borrowing.

Yes on Amendment 62: Acknowledges the inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

Yes on Amendment 63: Adds healthcare choice as a right listed in the bill of rights in the Colorado Constitution.

Citizen-Initiated Statutory Propositions (These amend the state laws and NOT the CO Constitution)

Yes on Prop 101: Reduces state income tax gradually over time from 4.63% to 3.5%. Reduces or eliminates taxes and fees on vehicle purchases, registration, leases, and rentals over four years. Eliminates all state and local taxes and fees on telecommunication services, except 911 fees. Requires voter approval to create or increase fees on vehicles and telecommunication services.

NO on Prop 102: Prohibits the release of a defendant on an unsecured bond to supervision by a pretrial services program unless that defendant is arrested for his or her first offense that is also a nonviolent misdemeanor.

County Questions

Yes on 1A: Ends the sale of marijuana while keeping intact the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers.

No on 1B: Allows the D.A. to run for a third four-year term.

No on 1C: Allows County Commissioners to run for a third term.

No on 1D: Allows the County Treasurer, Clerk, Surveyor and Assessor to run for a third term.

City of Colorado Springs Questions

No on 2B: Colorado Springs received $600,000 from taxpayers over and above its TABOR limit. The City is requesting taxpayers to allow it to keep these funds for allocation to “high priority” road and bridge repairs.

Yes on 2C: Al1ocates 15% of tax revenue raised for trails and open space (TOPS) for park maintenance for two years.

No on 300: Passage may lead Colorado Springs to an autocratic system. The most conservative city council member, Darryl Glenn is strongly opposed.

Why I am Voting for all Three Ballot Issues, Amendments 60, 61, and Proposition 101

2010-10-12T19:59:00.008-06:00

Having served as what many consider one of the most conservative members of the Colorado State Legislature for the past ten years and having served on the Legislative Audit Committee for four years, I have witnessed substantial government waste among nearly all government agencies, I find myself a strong supporter of Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101. Yes….all three.

Over my legislative tenure, I have seen government agencies continue to expand, advocate the drawdown of Federal money, redistribute wealth and preform operations beyond what is assigned them by statute. But then, that is the nature of government…all governments, including County, City and Municipal. There is no desire to maintain the status quo…only to grow “for the good of the citizenry.”

Two profound quotes from Thomas Jefferson come to mind:
• “That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.”

• “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Over the past several decades, even under TABOR, our Colorado government has grown dramatically. Some areas of government have become nothing more than service agencies. This is specifically true of agencies dealing with healthcare and human services as they now consider recipients of their services as “clients.” That perverse mentality is rampant among state’s bureaucrats such that they believe they are in their jobs to provide more and greater services to more and more residents. Totally lost is the question: “What is the proper role of government.”

So…will 60, 61 and 101 cause some severe dislocation? You bet…but it’s time; it’s well past time. For too long we’ve allowed government to continue to take over areas of our personal lives that used to fall within the concept of “personal responsibility.” For too long government has usurped what was the responsibility of churches, charities, neighbors, family and friends. Well, folks, it is time to take drastic measures. These are drastic times. Employment levels have fallen dramatically; the U.S. economic standing in the world is diminishing; the standard of living in the U.S. is sliding. It is time to make some dramatic changes; we can no longer proceed with “business as usual.” It will take all of us to reassess the proper role of government and to take back our responsibilities to ourselves and society.

It is for these very reasons that we need to force government back into its proper box. It will not go back easily. We have allowed it to be loose for too long and many “sucklings” (aka “stakeholder” groups) are used to using our tax dollars for their own benefit.

The Blue Book analysis on these three issues that you’ve received in the mail from the state’s Legislative Council staff are, in my view very distorted as to their “negative” impact on our state.

First, let me say that all three of these are separate issues...three entirely separate issues with one overriding theme…to rein in the size of government. While one or all of them may or may not pass, yet the opposition continues its mantra to kill all three. The opposition has gone nearly apoplectic in its attempt to defeat these three ballot issues by committing nearly $6.5 million to ensure their demise; that alone should challenge the credibility of the naysayers. For those reading this who recall the largest tax increase in the history of Colorado, Referendum C, many of the same players that forced that issue onto the ballot are working to defeat the “ugly three.” To them there are always reasons not to act fiscally responsible. To them, increased taxes and bigger government is always the answer.

Colorado’s Legislative Council is tasked with writing the election Blue Book and for making sure it is “non-partisan.” LCS is also tasked with providing a separate fiscal analysis of each issue. Contrary to precedent, the assumption made by the government staff seems to have been that all three issues should be considered as a set rather than three separate issues individually, as can be seen by the following heading placed in the fiscal analysis of each separate issue, “How does Proposition 101 (Amendment 60 and Amendment 61) interact with two other measures on the ballot?” By doing so, LCS is presenting a government-biased analysis of each issue. This is but one example of the bias presented in the Blue Book.

Additionally, the fiscal analysis seems designed so as to lead the reader to assume that if any or all of the three issues pass, that they take effect 1/1/2011, when in fact most of the fiscal impact of these issues is staged over four, ten, or twenty years. The analysis also leads the reader to assume that the legislature would not be making any budgetary adjustments over those years, and that there would be no economic benefit resulting from a decrease in taxes and/or fees. To me, that is absurd!

Each of these three issues, Amendments 60 and 61, as well as Proposition 101 is designed to return common sense to our tax system, to restore accountability to the voters and to protect the future for our children by not saddling them with untold debt.

• Will passage of these be somewhat painful? Yes
• Will the legislature, Counties, Cities and Municipalities struggle for a time as they reassess their priorities? Yes
• Will greater freedom for the taxpayer be the result? Yes

I would ask each of you to take the courageous step and vote YES for all three. Do not let the naysayers and their $6million create fear in your deliberations. Remember FDR's words: “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” It is time to take a bold step. It is long overdue.

Vote YES on Amendments 60 and 61
Vote YES on Proposition 101

Dire Consequences of Voting for Third-party Candidate, Tancredo for Governor

2010-08-24T16:14:00.004-06:00

Over the years, I’ve been a fan of Tom Tancredo and have admired his strength of character as well as his willingness to tenaciously challenge the big-government Washington elite head-on. I like such character and resolve in a person. During my ten years in the Colorado legislature, I have been nearly as bold in fighting progressive thinking and plotting that seems to be so common in too many legislators, including some in my own party. I wonder what is now driving him to subvert everything he has stood for.

Had Tancredo entered the Governor’s race and competed in the caucus and primary process as he should have, he may very well have had my vote, but instead he entered this race by deserting the Republican Party in order to circumvent the Party’s nominee. In short, by running as a third-party candidate, he has undermined the effort of tens of thousands of TeaParty activists that have worked so hard for over a year to analyze and select a nominee consistent with their values. Such political shenanigans are disgusting, particularly when done by those in the Republican political party. When one subverts the Republican Party rather than make it better, they are no longer “Republican.”

Tom Tancredo’s recent defection from the Republican Party in order to run for Governor and/or attempt to force Dan Maes out of the race is extremely misguided and creates a near insurmountable obstacle on our road to victory. Third-party candidates NEVER win elections; Tancredo said that himself. We refer to these third-party candidates as “spoilers.” Tancredo is the spoiler in this race and his continued candidacy will almost guarantee a Hickenlooper win as Colorado’s next socialist governor.

In December 2009, Tancredo, in a letter to 912/TeaParty activists stated:

“Some patriots are tempted to launch a third political party or back one of the existing small parties that never attract more than one or two percent of the vote in state races. I strongly believe that such a course is suicidal and would only result in splitting the conservative vote and guaranteeing the re-election of liberals and socialists.

I believe the Republican Party is the natural home of conservatives and that the road back to constitutional government lies in taking control of the Republican Party from top to bottom, from county committee to the statehouse and all the way to Washington, D.C.

Throughout our nation’s history, third parties have never succeeded in taking power and running the government. They have sometimes succeeded in pushing a major party in a new direction, but just as often, they succeeded only in electing the more liberal candidate after many conservatives waste their votes on a third party candidate. Remember 1992? Ross Perot never had a chance to be president, but he did help elect Bill Clinton.”

Either Tancredo believed what he wrote or not. If he did believe his comments, then he is deliberately attempting to ensure Hickenlooper’s election by subverting the Republican Party’s nominee. If he did not believe what he wrote, then why did he attempt to keep TeaParty activists from forming a third party? Has Tancredo now become “both ways Tom?”

The Statesman recently wrote that discussions were held between Colorado Party Chairman, Dick Wadhams and Tancredo over who the gubernatorial vacancy committee would appoint should Dan Maes, the Party’s candidate, be forced to drop out. Additionally, it reported that Tancredo wanted some veto power over the committee’s selection. So not only were these possible kingmakers willing to contravene the will of Republican primary voters, but they were also plotting to secure their candidate as the anointed one. A vacancy committee appointment to override the voter’s selection? Yes.

Because of growing nation-wide distain for Obama’s Administration and the overreach of a Democrat-controlled Congress and Colorado Legislature, and an extremely liberal Governor, this year’s election may reverse the majorities in both the Colorado Senate and House of Representative from being solidly Democrat to Republican. I predict that following this November’s election, Colorado’s Senate will be the most conservative Senate in our state’s history. To lose the future benefits of this swing by electing a pro-tax, sanctuary-city Democrat (Hickenlooper) would thwart the hopes and effort of tens of thousands of citizens, many TeaParty and 912 activists, who have risen up to take their state government back from those elitists who have ignored their will for too many years. Key to seeing their goals met is to elect a conservative as Governor.

With his win in the recent Republican Primary, Dan Maes will now command top line on the ballot this coming November. Dan Maes is the people’s choice for Governor. He is not the choice of back-room politics. The grassroots have made their voices heard. They will no longer tolerate politics as usual. The people demand a say in who represents them. They will no longer watch from the sidelines while “inside baseball” determines who they may vote for. Those days are over.

Senator Kevin Lundberg and I were the first two legislators in Colorado’s General Assembly to give our endorsements to Dan Maes. My decision was made carefully and with much thought after over eight hours of intensive interviews with Dan spread over three separate meetings last November. As the legislator recently viewed by examiner.com as Colorado’s most conservative, my endorsements are only given with much thought and personal discussion with candidates.

With his strong win at the State Assembly, Dan Maes must now be the gubernatorial candidate supported by Republicans and those from other parties who desire a truly conservative candidate who can win the Governorship. November will be a critical election for limited-government advocates.

It is crucial that we understand what’s at stake in this election it is much more than just electing one person over another. Changes Colorado’s citizens are demanding will not occur should the Democrat win. Please understand the consequences on the following issues:

• Redistricting of Colorado’s Political Boundaries

Following the Census every ten years, the legislature is charged with redistricting the political boundaries for Congressional and State legislative districts by putting forth bills to adjust the boundary maps for these voting districts. This is mainly done to reflect changing population numbers throughout the state and align these districts in accordance to certain set criteria. Ten years ago, the legislature (with a Republican majority in the House and a Democrat majority in the Senate) couldn’t agree to new redistricting boundaries and as such, the Colorado Supreme Court stepped in and established those boundaries based on their politicized liberal bias.

With a politicized Supreme Court majority, the decision naturally favored the Democrat maps. That could very likely happen again with a liberal governor, even though there will most-likely be a conservative Republican-controlled legislature. Even though Colorado’s Constitution clearly states that the legislature shall decide Congressional and Legislative districts, the liberal Supreme Court ignored the legislature’s constitutional authority and considered itself part of the legislature. That will most-likely happen again if the Governor vetoes redistricting maps developed by a Republican-controlled legislature and the Supreme Court adheres to “precedent.” Since third-party candidates can’t win, a vote for Tancredo will be a vote to maintain a progressive bias with respect to the state’s redistricting process for the next TEN YEARS.

• Selection of Colorado Supreme Court Justices

Should Clear the Bench Colorado be successful in orchestrating the removal of three progressive members of the Colorado Supreme Court, as appears possible in the November election, the next Governor will appoint their replacements. Colorado needs justices that will interpret the constitution, not modify its meaning. These appointments will be critical and therefore must come from a governor who honors the Constitution. Since third-party spoiler candidates can’t win, a vote for Tancredo will be a vote for more progressive/liberal justices on Colorado’s Supreme Court.

• Illegal Immigration

Many of Colorado’s conservative legislators have worked long and hard since 2005 to pass legislation that would deal effectively with Colorado’s fast-growing problem of illegal immigration. Numerous bills have been introduced, only to be promptly killed by a Democrat-controlled legislature.

This is a very serious and growing issue in Colorado, especially since the recent passage of Arizona’s SB1070. Many more illegal aliens are now crossing Colorado’s border from Arizona. If Colorado elects a conservative Governor, we will pass several bills that will reverse that trend; if not, the sanctuary policies that Hickenlooper instituted in Denver will lead to Colorado becoming a sanctuary state. As more and more states pass bills similar to SB1070, illegals from other states will flock to Colorado. Much is at stake.

It is terribly ironic that Tancredo, who has worked so tirelessly on the illegal immigration issue, would deliberately orchestrate a situation where strong illegal-immigration bills would be vetoed by a Democrat Governor. Dan Maes has committed to signing a bill similar or identical to AZ’s SB1070 as well as a bill that requires private employers to utilize the federal government’s E-verify system when hiring new employees.

Republicans must win the Governor’s race to halt and reverse illegal immigration in Colorado. Since a third-party candidate can’t win, a vote for Tancredo will be a vote to increase illegal immigration in Colorado.

• No Roll-back of Hyper-liberal Legislation

Over the past six years, Colorado’s legislature has been co-opted by a strong radically-liberal majority. Prior to that, the last four years of the Owens’ Republican Administration was also moving in that direction. Numerous bills were passed during those years that limited personal freedom, limited, or removed personal responsibility, ignored the seriousness of illegal immigration, redistributed wealth from hard-working families to welfare recipients, instituted unconstitutional tax increases, attacked oil and gas production and pushed an all-out assault on small businesses. Additionally, several bills passed that are morally reprehensible to the majority of Coloradans. If the Colorado Legislature will have any chance of rolling back many of these bills, it will take a conservative Governor. Those who vote for Tancredo should know that third-party candidates can’t win. Thus a vote for Tancredo will keep in place those many progressive, redistribution-of-wealth bills passed in recent years.

• Thwarted TeaParty Goals

The phenomenal rise of the TeaParty/912 groups has been nothing short of spectacular. Their goal has been to be heard and to return this nation to its roots. To accomplish this, they have involved themselves at every level of politics to elect conservative candidates who will listen to their concerns and restore the meaning of our constitution. “Don’t tread on me,” has been a standard cry of many. In Colorado, the Governor’s race will determine whether or not their vision will be fulfilled. Because third-party spoiler candidates can’t win, a vote for Tancredo will keep that liberal agenda moving in Colorado.

There are a few naysayers in our Party that are not wild about the nominee. That’s always the case. To them I say, it’s time to get behind the party’s nominee. That’s how the system works…or at least should work, and that’s how elections are won.

The time is NOW for all Coloradans to pull together to support the only conservative candidate that has a chance of winning. Not to do so will postpone the progress made to-date by so many patriotic Coloradans. Tancredo is pulling precious donations and support from Republicans and Independents and is relying on raising money from outside of Colorado. We cannot allow this misguided effort to succeed. Should you get a plea for funds from Tancredo, please consider redirecting them to Dan Maes for Governor.

List of Immigration-related Resolutions Passed Overwhelmingly by Delegates to Colorado's Republican State Assembly

2010-08-19T15:12:00.006-06:00

The following is a list of those immigration-related Resolutions passed by the Republican delegates to the State Convention follows:

21. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that our national borders be immediately secured.

Total 3251 For 3215 Against 36 98.89%

49. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans support mandatory proof-of-citizenship when any person registers to vote in Colorado.

Total 3097 For 3059 Against 38 98.77%

25. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans oppose the concept of sanctuary cities and support legislation that would prohibit public funding to any locality that refuses to cooperate with the enforcement of immigration laws.

Total 3121 For 3071 Against 50 98.40%

28. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that any illegal immigrant who has been convicted of any criminal offense be deported immediately upon completion of any term of incarceration.

Total 3116 For 3065 Against 51 98.36%

50. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans support a requirement that every person must present a United States, state, or local government-issued photo identification card before being allowed to vote.

Total 3077 For 3019 Against 58 98.12%

52. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans affirm that the English language be the only official language of the United States.

Total 3078 For 3015 Against 63 97.95%

26. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that illegal immigrants should not receive any non-emergency benefits, services or privileges from federal, state or local governments.

Total 3100 For 3022 Against 78 97.48%

27. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that employers who hire immigrants should be required to verify the prospective employee’s immigration status.

Total 3094 For 2960 Against 134 95.67%

22. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans oppose any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Total 3215 For 3019 Against 196 93.90%

24. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that a well-regulated guest worker program is important to Colorado agriculture and industry.

Total 3201 For 2999 Against 202 93.69%

23. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that birthright citizenship not be granted to any person when neither parent is a citizen.

Total 3215 For 2927 Against 288 91.04%

Several Members of the Republican Study of Colorado take trip to Arizona to discuss AZ's SB 1070

2010-08-19T12:55:00.008-06:00

Members of the Republican Study Committee of Colorado take seriously the immigration-related Resolutions passed overwhelmingly by the delegates to Colorado's State Republican Convention earlier this year. Their four-day trip beginning August 18th, 2010 was designed to increase awareness among legislators as to the seriousness of the illegal immigration in Arizona as well as to gain insight into Arizona's recently-passed SB1070 which instituted strong measures against the growing influx of illegal aliens to the U.S.

The increasingly negative effect of illegal immigration on Colorado's citizens is of serious concern. These negative affects are being felt in Colorado's K-12 education system, hospitals, law enforcement, judicial system, to mention a few. On 2008, the costs of illegal immigration on Colorado's taxpayers was estimated by the Federation for Immigration Reform, to be at least $1.1 billion, costing the average native-born household $612/yr.

Colorado's legislators are gaining valuable insight on the issues surrounding AZ's bill. Two legislators plan to introduce a nearly identical bill in Colorado's upcoming legislative session scheduled to begin January 13, 2011. Representative Lambert, who will be elected as Senator of Colorado Springs' Senate District 9 on November 2nd., plans to introduce this bill in the Senate. Rep. Randy Baumgardner has indicated he will introduce such a bill in the House of Representatives.

Furthermore, I expect other illegal-immigration bills to be introduced next year, including:

Requirement for non-government employers to determine legal work status through the federal government's e-verify system. A similar bill has been introduced by me annually for the past five years. (State agencies already adhere to this practice)
Proof of citizenship to register to vote
Requirement to produce ID to vote
Requirement for K-12 Schools to identify numbers of students in the U.S. illegally
Requirement to compare Colorado's death certificates to the list of recipients receiving Medicaid

Dan Maes, candidate for Governor has indicated he will sign an AZ SB1070 bill as well as an e-verify bill should they reach his desk.

Democrats should get on board with Arizona's immigration law

2010-05-31T09:21:00.003-06:00

May 31, 2010 3:00 PM

By Dave Schultheis

While it might come as a shock to Democrats — such as Boulder liberal and U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., most of America is applauding Arizona for taking control of illegal immigration within its borders.

Simply put, the law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person’s immigration status if officers have already stopped that person for a legitimate reason and have a reasonable suspicion the person might be in the United States illegally.

Polis and his colleagues would have the public believing the Arizona law will scare and scapegoat American citizens of certain ethnic heritages.

Opponents love to call the new law “racist,” and Polis even compared it to the policies of Nazi Germany and state sponsored genocide.

Give me a break.

According to a poll conducted by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, one in three Hispanics in the United States said they support the law.

Are they being racist against people of their own ethnicity?

That same poll goes on to note that 64 percent of all adults support Arizona’s new immigration law.

And it’s not just Republicans who think this is a good idea. Half of all Democrats polled say they support the law and two-thirds of Independents polled support it.

The law makes clear that if the person produces a valid driver’s license or other state-issued identification he or she is presumed to be in the United States legally.

Since when has a police officer, asking someone for a driver’s license after making a stop, a “racist” action?

Nearly every American has a driver’s license or some form of identification. If a person lacks proper identification it is reasonable to suspect he or she might be here illegally.

To further demonstrate his disconnect with the American people, Polis has thrown his support behind an “immigration reform” proposal that is supported by the likes of Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Charles Schumer, D-New York.

“If (illegal immigrants) obey our laws, learn our language and pay our taxes, we will welcome (them) to American,” Polis wrote in an editorial.

Polis can call it “comprehensive reform” all he wants. He can dress it up and call it whatever he chooses. But any proposal that allows people who are here illegally to cut to the front of the line is amnesty.

We are in a major recession, and we need all the jobs we can get for Colorado citizens and those who reside in Colorado legally. Polis should remember that as he and his Democratic colleagues prepare to face an electorate that is sensitive to job losses.

It is time for Democrats in Congress to start standing up for the rule of law, which they have sworn to uphold.

State Sen. Dave Schultheis is a Republican representing Senate District 9 in Colorado Springs.

Democrat-controlled Senate Committee Unwilling to Assure Adequate Public Testimony

2010-04-21T10:57:00.003-06:00

The "circus" that took place during this past year in the Congress in order to pass Obamacare angered citizens across the country. The public's strong rejection of government health-care, was also caused by Congress ignoring of public opinion and ignorance as to what the bill contained.

In 1988, Colorado voters passed a Constitutional Amendment, now referred to as the Gavel Amendment, to ensure that all bills would receive a public hearing. Following its passage, the House and Senate adopted rules providing for at least a one-day public notification of hearings for each and every bill. However, both Houses also adopted a rules that allowed for a waiving of all rules during the last three days of the Colorado legislature, allowing bills to be heard in a matter of hours. So much for keeping the public informed! During the last thee days, under current rules, no notice of public hearings can be as short as the Senate President deems necessary. In most instances, there is no-one from the public present...only lobbyists.

After experiencing this last-minute rush near the close of session, for the past nine years, I drafted Senate Resolution SR10-008, to make sure the current one-day notice of bill hearings would remain, except for bills deemed to be an emergency by a two-thirds majority. The Senate State, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee heard the Resolution on Monday, April 19th. As expected, the Resolution was summarily killed by the Democrat majority on the committee on a party-line vote.

This Resolution needs to be passed next session, should the Republicans be in charge. Both political parties have used this lack of public notice to rush bills though without adequate time for review and contemplation. This procedure must be stopped.

Put a Stop to Suspension of CO Senate Rules During Last Three Days of the Session

2010-04-12T14:11:00.005-06:00

In the past nine years that I have served in the Colorado Legislator, the custom, provided for under the Senate Rule 17(f)((6) states: “To suspend the rules shall require 24 votes, except upon three days’ notice, in which event 18 votes shall be required. What this means is that the Senate can rush bills through without public comment, and hold committee meetings at the podium without the benefit of public comment. This rule allows for much mischief by the majority party during the last three days of the legislature and makes it VERY difficult, if not impossible to read and understand bills prior to voting. This procedure is followed no matter which party is in the majority and has always frustrated many of us, who like to know what we are voting on and want to have time to study and understand bills.

So…I have proposed Senate Resolution 10-008 which, if passed would no longer allow suspension of the rules unless there is a 2/3 majority in the Committee of Reference to waive the normal Committee rules and would require 24 votes by the full Senate on a bill-by-bill basis to allow a bill to be rushed through during the last three days. The current process allows much mischief to take place.

The Colorado Legislature has 120 days (4 months) to do its business. If it can’t get it done w/in that time-frame it can be granted exceptions on a bill-by-bill basis if the bill is really crucial. Leaving public comment out of committee deliberations should not be acceptable, except for emergencies. Mischief should not be tolerated.

The Resolution. SR10-008 has been assigned by the Senate President (Dem) to the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee to be killed. The date of the hearing has not been assigned as yet. Now is the time for Tea Party and 912 activists to take a strong stance in favor of this Resolution if they so choose. The Senate should be a deliberative body… not a body that slams important bills through with little or not thought or public input.

If there is interest in passing SR10-008,so that bills can be deliberated on properly during the last three days of the legislative session, the key persons to contact are the Democrats on the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

Sen. Rollie Heath 303-866-4872 E-mail: rollie.heath.senate@state.co.us

Sen. Betty Boyd 303-866-4857 E-mail: betty.boyd.senate@state.co.us

Sen. Bob Bacon 303-866-4841 E-mail: bob.bacon.senate@state.co.us

I could really use your help to get this Resolution out of Committee and to the Senate Floor for debate.

Sen. Schultheis Endorses Dan Maes for Governor of Colorado

2010-03-11T15:33:00.003-07:00

Today, I declare my endorsement for Dan Maes for Governor of Colorado.

Dan Maes and I have had several extended meetings over the past several months regarding his candidacy. During those times, we discussed his views on a myriad of situations that may come before him as Governor of Colorado. He holds strong, conservative values, and believes them to be the best for Colorado's citizens.

During tough fiscal times, Dan Maes understand the need for fiscal discipline and has the courage to make appropriate cuts to achieve a balanced budget without relying on one-time funds to do so. He understands the continued desire of government to grow in good times and bad.

I am convinced that Dan Maes will be a strong defender of States Rights; he understands the incessant desire of the federal government to continue to encroach on the rights of individual states. To me, this is one of Colorado's most critical issue.

One of my major issues is illegal immigration. After our discussions, I am firmly convinced that he will ensure that the State Departments are upholding the intent of a bill passed in 2006 that required all state vendors to verify work eligibility of those employed to perform work for the state.

To view his positions on key issues, please refer to his website.

I am convinced that Dan Maes is a true conservative, that he truly believes they will best serve the people of Colorado, and will hold to these values in the years ahead.

"Religious Bill of Rights" Killed by Democrats on Party-line Vote

2010-02-23T21:35:00.009-07:00

Imagine a world where religious ideals are not imposed by the State. Imagine a world where religion is not imposed upon the secular, nor secularism imposed upon the religious. These are the ideals America was and is based upon, the ideals held strongly by our Founding Fathers. Fast-forward to 2010 to a small room in the Colorado State Capitol. There in this room the Religious Bill of Rights, SB10-089 is attempting to uphold those ideals within the public school system.

However, with misconstrued facts and obvious anti-Christian ideology, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to kill the bill, which would have created some clarity into what is and what is not legal in the expression of one’s religious rights within the public school setting. Our Founding Fathers would have been appalled.

At first, it seems understandable that the committee shot down the bill, many members believing that this bill was an attempt to establish Christian “imperialism” in our public schools (although it was obviously religion-neutral). It is also understandable that American history expresses the freedom, which we express in our religion, especially after escaping the Religiously-doctrined Imperial power of Britain. By all means we do not want a return to the days of forcing children into Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. But the Religious Bill of Rights proposed ideas far from these ancient ideas.

What the bill did propose was the allow children, parents, and teachers to understand what religious practice could be exhibited by children and conducted by children. It also allowed for parents to understand how “exposed” their children can be. To provide this information, the bill requested the Commissioner of Education to request clarification of the Attorney General of commonly asked questions by teachers, students and parents and to provide court citations for clarifying answers.

Opposition to the bill came from the usual crowd. The ACLU, the Anti-defamation League (ADL), the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transgender activists, (GLBT) and a Jewish Rabbi…all appearing to be strongly opposed to Christian ideology, and all attempting to squelch religious freedoms from Christians (since there are more in numbers than all other faiths combined).

Click here to listen to some of the testimony from the ACLU's and GLBT's representatives.

These outside activist groups felt as if they were being alienated from this bill. One opponent that distinguished himself from the others was Rabbi Foster. Somehow, this Rabbi understood this bill to be establishing the dominance of Christianity over his religious view as well as that of Muslims, Buddhists, and Atheists. Rabbi Foster believed this bill conveyed a “sense that Judaism is pitted against Christianity” and continued to attack the bill with all of the opponents missing the point that this bill was only designed to inform citizens of laws already in effect. His strongest argument against establishing a document that clarified pre-established rights was that:

“Some peoples' religious traditions believe that it’s important for others to believe what they believe” It seemed obvious that this Rabbi's comments implied that my goal was to impose my religious beliefs upon all of Colorado's K-12 school children, teachers and administration.

Click here to listen to a portion of the Rabbi's testimony.

Democrat Senators, looking for any reason to kill the bill, then used this testimony to express concern that this bill might have some negative affect on students who may feel their religious beliefs were not being expressed as frequently. The apparent consequence of this thinking leads to minimizing the awareness of the 1st Amendment for the majority of Coloradans, thereby not "offending" those of minority faiths and the religiously-intolerant. To be expected, the Democrat-controlled committee conveniently overlooked the degree to which secular ideas infringe the rights of religious children and teachers of all faiths.

The Committee also used the tired argument that laws are already in place to “remedy” issues where students are denied their basic inherent rights. This bill was to make sure that these rights were known; "rights" without one's knowledge of them cannot be exercised. What societal benefit would there be if laws for driving motor vehicles were not known? This bill was designed to provide a preventive measure against the willful or uninformed violation of student’s First Amendment Rights.

Clearly, the Progressive Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee would rather maintain a public school system that refuses to acknowledge the Religious Freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution to its citizens, in the hopes that they will remain ignorant of this important freedom.

"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." Benjamin Franklin

"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins."
- Benjamin Franklin

A good Federal jobs program that costs taxpayers nothing

2010-01-24T22:05:00.004-07:00

January 24, 2010 6:50 PM

By Dave Schultheis

If we could wave a magic wand and add 100,000 new jobs to Colorado’s economy over the next three years, who wouldn’t go for it? We do not have a magic wand, but we have the next best thing: a program to reserve new jobs only for citizens and legal immigrants.

The internet-based federal E-Verify program allows employers to screen all new hires against a database that matches names to Social Security numbers and immigration records. More than 175,000 employers are now enrolled in the Department of Homeland Security program, and nationally, one in four new hires are processed by E-Verify.

Why doesn’t Colorado utilize this program? Actually, it does, but only timidly. Since 2006, any company doing business with a state government agency must participate in the federal E-Verify program.

So, why doesn’t Colorado require all employers to use it? Strangely, that proposal has been opposed mainly because… well, because it works. E-verify is effective in denying jobs to illegal aliens. Therefore business owners, who think they need illegal workers, oppose any measure to reserve jobs for legal workers.

Many employers end up avoiding the program because it works too well. Those opponents are joined by advocates for “migrant rights” who think a right to an illegal job should be guaranteed to anyone who succeeds in crossing our borders illegally. The people not represented in that odd coalition are the unfortunate American workers losing jobs to illegal workers.

Opponents blocked a proposal in the 2006 special session of the state legislature, and every year since, that would have mandated use of E-Verify across Colorado. In its place the legislature passed a toothless measure merely requiring employers to keep records that are then supposedly subject to audit. Three years later, not one employer has been fined and not one illegal worker has been dismissed under this meaningless law.

It is hard to make a serious argument that employers cannot find legal workers in an economy suffering from historically high unemployment. Farm laborers, you say?

The federal government already has a program for guest workers in agriculture, ski resorts, landscaping and similar seasonal businesses. Moreover, less than 5 percent of illegal aliens are employed in agriculture according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

It’s time to move forward to assure Colorado jobs for Colorado citizens and legal immigrants. E-Verify is not “anti-immigrant,” because real immigrants have green cards and can work legally.

Arguments against the program by the employer community rely mainly on myths and scare tactics. Here are a few facts opponents try to hide:

Based on a Government Accounting Office audit, the internet-based E-Verify program has an enviable error rate of only .004. More than 96 percent of new hire applicants are processed and approved within 24 hours.

Only 2.8 percent of applicants are rejected due to a mismatch between name and Social Security number, and 90 percent of those persons do not protest the rejection. More than 175,000 employers now participate nationally and an average 1,200 employers joined the program each week in 2009.

The cost to employers to set up the program is less than $100.

Employer participation in the program has grown 274 percent since 2007.

In September 2009, all federal agencies began requiring contractors to use the program.

Another argument sometimes used by opponents is that expansion of the E-verify program should await congressional action on immigration reform. In truth, the exact opposite is the case. Only when the public is convinced the nation is enforcing existing laws against illegal workers will it make any sense to consider a more ambitious reform.

In fact, that is the position of the Obama administration. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano declared in a November speech at the ultra-liberal Center for American Progress that “E-verify is an essential element of any comprehensive reform agenda.”

The federal E-Verify program is neither radical nor punitive.

Any employer participating in the program can use that participation as an affirmative defense against federal immigration enforcement if the company is ever audited by immigration authorities.

Adopting the E-Verify program will establish a level playing field for employers wanting to obey the law but are in competition against other employers using illegal labor to cut costs. This unfair competition will be reduced drastically if all employers would be required to hire only legal workers.

I plan to introduce legislation once more to adopt the E-Verify program in Colorado. If legislation fails, a ballot initiative will allow Colorado voters to make that decision on November 2.

State Sen. Schultheis is a Republican from Colorado Springs

Sen. Schultheis votes NO on Gov. Appointment to Exec. Director of the Dept. of Public Health and Environment

2010-01-20T14:39:00.007-07:00

The Senate Health and Human Services' committee heard testimony today by Martha E. Rudolf, Esq., of Denver, Colorado, being recommended for appointment by Gov. Ritter to fill the position of Executive Director of the Department of Public Health and Environment. While well qualified, Ms. Rudolf was asked her views on two extremely important issues:

Is there an issue with global warming...and it is caused by humans? Her answer to both related questions was an unqualified "yes." Quote: "that global warming is real, it is happening, it is something that is caused by humans and that it is something that we must address."
Does she consider CO2 to be a pollutant? Her answer: Quote: “It [CO2] has been declared a pollutant even though it is a natural element, but it is a contributor to global warming and at this point what EPA is struggling with and I think states are struggling with as well is designating this as a pollutant when it is so pervasive, meaning that we have to really develop a different kind of regulatory scheme or control scheme for it. It does not fit easily or well in the current clean air act. In our view when you’re looking at programs in the clean air act where you regulate emissions at 100 tons or 250 tons and you look at the average building as emitting” [2 to 5000 tons] “its untenable to try to shoehorn regulating that pollutant in the current program. I think EPA is recognizing that and they’re struggling with how to deal with regulating this as a pollutant. We’re not really sure what makes the best sense and how you take a look at this. I think one of the things we need to figure out and I think we’re doing a good job or pretty good job that is, is just figuring how much is out there how much is emitted by forces, what is the…what does the utility, what does the building emit. And having them know that, what do you do about it, what really makes the most sense? How do you handle this? You can really put a plastic bubble on a building, so what do you do and I think it is going to be a struggle for a while to try to figure this out. But my off perspective is that you cant”…[Inaudible recording 10:19:38-42 [Use the rubric of how we interact?]…”You have to treat it as a problem with conventional proof.”

Martha Rudolf also mentioned that the Governor's office is working on a Climate Action Plan. Quote: "As you're aware, the governor has a climate action plan and has a group of folks within the state government that are working on that climate action plan."

Based on her answers to the committee, I voted NO and will debate these issues on the full floor of the Senate when this matter comes to the full Senate for confirmation

Sen. Dave Schultheis Announces Decision to Forgo Second Term

2009-11-02T20:34:00.003-07:00

After considerable deliberation, I have decided to forgo running for my second and final four-year term as a Colorado State Senator representing Senate District 9. I will, however, continue to serve out my current term, which culminates at the end of 2010, concluding ten years of political service for the citizens of Colorado. This has been an extremely difficult decision for me, as I love the challenge of serving the best interests of my constituents on legislative matters, by steadfastly advocating for traditional, conservative values, which I know to be the best overall values for the citizens of Colorado and the nation.

After much prayer and discussion with family members and close friends, I have come to this decision in order to spend more time with family, including my five rapidly-growing grandsons. As is common knowledge, the responsibilities of political office are extremely demanding on one’s time and schedule --- often to the detriment of time spent with family and friends.

Having served to the very best of my ability since 2001, first in Colorado’s House of Representatives for six years and now in the Colorado State Senate, I have consistently attempted to uphold Conservative principles to the best of my ability, even when it was difficult to do so. I remain convinced that those principles are essential for a society whose citizens value freedom, liberty and personal responsibility.

The citizens of Senate 9 District deserve a strong, unwavering Conservative to be their Senator; it is an important responsibility that I have taken very seriously. While I have been honored that the voters have had faith in me over these years, it has always been my view that if there were others who could fulfill those duties with the same level of passion for Conservative principles as I, then I could direct my efforts to other areas; there is so much to do to reclaim the vision of our Founding Fathers. There are now individuals standing in the wings who can and will passionately and consistently carry that mantle.

During my years in the Legislature, I have purposely never sought a leadership position, as I believed my role was to stand firmly against every temptation to moderate my conservative views for greater acceptance by the caucus. As a result, I felt free and unencumbered, to hold high the banner of each and every conservative principle that Republicans say they believe in…and to do so without compromise.

It is with a great deal of gratitude to the citizens of Senate District 9, and a strong sense of personal accomplishment that I move forward to meet future challenges.

God bless you, the citizens of Senate District 9 and of Colorado.

COLORADO LEGISLATORS SUPPORT NY23 DOUG HOFFMAN

2009-10-27T19:17:00.008-06:00

Colorado Republican legislators Sen. Scott Renfroe, Sen. Kevin Lundberg, Sen. Greg Brophy, Sen. Dave Schultheis and Rep. Kent Lambert are pleased to endorse Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, candidate for the 23rd Congressional District of New York. A liberal Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, is supported by the New York GOP in a contest that has not had the benefit of a primary election. Assemblywoman Scozzafava’s views do not reflect the conservative principles set forth in the Republican Platform.

The Republican establishment should stop supporting candidates that merely call themselves Republicans to get elected, and whose actions then undermine principled Republican legislation. We should represent our loyal Party members better by heeding their warnings against compromising Republican principles. Unlike Scozzafava’s views, the Republican Party Platform is pro-life, pro-capitalist, and pro-traditional marriage, and is opposed to radical leftist groups like ACORN.

Liberal Democrat issues are not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States, and therefore should be rejected by the Republican Party if we want this nation to survive and thrive as a beacon of light to the world. This is not just a local New York issue. Republicans throughout America should insist that their Party back candidates worthy of their support, not liberals supported by Democratic leaders and Barack Obama.

We are thrilled to have found that Doug Hoffman will stand firm for freedom, liberty, limited government and the other values that Republicans hold dear.

Please consider helping Doug by visiting his official website below and joining us in supporting his campaign: http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/donate3.html.

Time For Parents to Rise Up and Take Back Control of the Public Education System.

2009-10-05T11:03:00.005-06:00

The need to wrest control of our Public School System from the Unions is long overdue. It is past time that we pay strong attention to those running for School Board elections. As parents and grandparents of children in the public school system, we can no longer sit idly by as the system indoctrinates our children with liberal, Progressive ideas that run counter to the views of our Founding Fathers or fly in the face of the religious and moral values so many parents and children. We must act now to ensure that future school-board members are elected who will see to it that schools respect parents' wishes.

Tea parties, 9.12 groups, Coalitions for a Conservative Majority are just three of the more active groups taking a strong interest in restoring conservative principles to all portions of the political spectrum. I urge you to join them. Then, I urge you to set up a committee to vet out all public school-board candidates via questionnaires and public forums where candidates are invited to share their philosophy of education and what they see as their role, if elected.

Below is only a very rough start of the kinds of questions that could be asked on questionnaires and through public forums. I urge you to consider using these and adding many of your own and adding to them as you see fit.

What do you see as the role of the Parents in public education? Be specific.
What do you see as the role of school Administration in public education? Be specific.
What do you see as the role of the school Board in the public education? Be specific.
Do you see a role for parents in the review and selection of textbooks and other materials? Why? Why not?
Many of today’s textbooks minimize the views of our founding documents and the reasons for the greatness and exceptionalism of the U.S. Would you take specific action to make sure this does not happen in your school district? If so, what action? If not, why not?
Would you welcome or resist the establishment of a committee of parents who desire to review books, movies and other handout materials…and Why?
How would you articulate your concept of "diversity" and how it should or should not be of concern to parents and children?
Should the teaching of controversial issues such as abortion, homosexuality, egalitarianism, evolution, global warming, and other issues that are deemed controversial be a part of the school curriculum? If not, why not? If so, what should
Most public school administrators, teachers, staff, parents and children do not understand the law with respect to Religious Freedom in public schools, thus increasingly opening up schools to lawsuits from pro-religious-freedom organizations. Would you be willing to work with organizations such as the Alliance Defense Fund, the Rutherford Institute and others to ensure that the religious beliefs of teachers, staff and students are encouraged rather than violated? Would you be willing to require the school administration to make such applicable religious freedoms known?
Do you feel that educating students on issues deemed as pro-abortion, use of condoms, homosexuality is the role of the school or the role of the parents? Why or Why not?
Parents often feel they are not informed as to the content or timing of the teaching of controversial subject matter to their children. Do you favor “opt-in” or “opt-out” methods as ways for the school administration to inform parents of controversial materials being taught their children?
By receiving federal funds (often as little as 5% of a school’s budget) the school is required to adhere to an increasingly-large list of federal regulations. What is your stance on the taking of federal funds by a public school? Would you be in favor of refusing such funds to provide greater freedom and flexibility for the school administration?
Would you favor teachers opting out of the teachers union? Would you advocate that school administrators inform their teachers of this option?
Most school districts use considerable budget dollars for advertising to bring attention to their schools. Do you see this as necessary? Why or why not?
Do you believe that total transparency of every item of income/expense of the school district should be available and searchable on the web?
Because Colorado School Districts receive money from the State based on the number of children in attendance as of a certain date, most schools have a promotion strategy to make sure the greatest number of students is present on that “count” day. Do you believe such promotion costs are proper expenses of the school?

As another suggestion for the growing number of conservative activist groups, it would be wise for a sub-committee of these groups to establish itself as a watchdog group within each Public School District. This sub-committee would attend all meetings of the School Board, review individual school and district policies, and reviews all educational materials used by each school. This group would then report back to the “parent” group to establish action items to correct whatever problem was observed.

When the public school system takes on responsibility to educate children, it must take that responsibility seriously and realize that it is responsible first and foremost to the parents of those children who have entrusted them with that responsibility. Parents, not the teachers union (NEA) make the important educational decisions for their children. It is time we took back our schools and made them parent-centric, not union-centric. If you agree, please begin to take action now. The destiny of our country and the future of the children weighs in the balance.

Letter to Govenor Ritter Challenging Him To Take Up Meaningful Spending Reductions

2009-09-24T15:13:00.002-06:00

With the current state income shrinking precipitously, and observing Governor Ritter's "tweak-around-the-edges approach, I felt compelled to write a letter to him challenging his approach. You will find that letter here.

A Cautionary Look at Colorado's Financial Outlook...by Jeff Wright

2009-09-23T14:56:00.004-06:00

The recent budget review released by the Colorado Legislative Council is sobering. More so, it seems, because the CLC is still fully bought into the mainstream scenario of a slow-moving recovery through 2010 and then a return to "normal," rather than the classic "dead-cat bounce" we are actually experiencing. That scenario will prove to be deadly to the budget process in the next two legislative sessions. The top-to-bottom restructuring of state and local government should begin immediately, not continue to engage in fiscal and financial chicanery and gimmicks. It should have started last session, but the Democrats and the Governor snuck through the session with a ton left undone, a hope and a prayer.

In order to understand what needs to happen in the state, it is important to understand the larger picture. Last September, when I first forecast a $1 billion shortfall, the CLC opened with $300 million which they escalated in December to $600 million, then $800+ million in the next report. They didn't get to $1 billion until the final numbers came in June 20, 2009. Meanwhile the Governor's office was so far off the mark as to be completely laughable and reflects the fairy-tale, 'Alice-in-Wonderland' environment in that office.

The shortfalls will most likely continue for the next two quarters, maybe less, then look to be in recovery in the late spring and summer of 2010 before falling off the cliff again. That will occur as the-already-generated fake dollars of the stimulus, credit and monetary injections and other deficit spending programs by the federal government continue to push money into the economy for a time. That will end when there is a final cut-off by the international buyers of our debt.

The stock market bounce likely won't last that long. However, perception combined with key market players' ability to move ahead of the market, is a powerful tool on the side of the Keynesians for a period of time. They can put their money in and take it out in time to move to hard assets before the back-end inflation created really hits the masses. Key market players are actually initial beneficiaries of the coming inflation, since they get their hands on the money closest to the point of release from the government and central bank. In the flow of the defined Austrian credit cycle that behavior is expected prior to the broad inflationary effects taking over.

If inflation has set-in by then, as some forecast in mid-2010, it will make the numbers look better even while the real value of the transactions are falling, i.e., home prices, for one example. Home prices will actually begin to show a recovery and escalation again. I believe, the manipulation of the Keynesians in charge of government and central bank policy are still effective enough that a massive inflationary (20+% annually) scenario is still 18-24 months off or longer. We may not arrive at hyperinflation (100+% and then go logarithmic shortly thereafter) before there is severe global monetary readjustment and replacement of the global dollar regime with regional currency systems. With 70% of the global transaction currency afloat represented in dollars, the other nations will have no choice but to move to protect themselves as the states must move here.

One key indicator here will be a strong move away from the dollar as the oil transaction currency of choice. When the deal, to make all OPEC oil transactions priced in dollars, was sealed with Saudi Arabia in 1973 it put a 30- year prop under the dollar after President Nixon removed us from the Gold standard in 1971. That deal gave the U.S. 30+ years of open field running to receive a direct subsidy from the rest of the world. In order to buy their oil the rest of the nations of the world had to obtain dollars to do so. The Fed and federal government were more than happy to comply, multiplying the number of dollars available by orders-of-magnitude above the real growth of our productive economy through direct supply ("printing") and deficit spending. When that subsidy ends so does the dollar, money printing and deficit spending. Our trade and fiscal deficits, globalization and outsourcing movements, and the expansion of credit and subsequent crash are all sourced back to those two policies: Removal of the dollar from the gold standard in 1971 and OPECs agreement in 1973 to only price oil transactions in dollars. The sub-prime and credit crisis are symptoms, not causes, of our larger monetary and debt crises 30-plus years in the making.

Colorado must move to protect itself from the sudden explosion and then implosion of Federal spending and money printing. It will fool many people for a period of time and skew the statistics, but in the end the only states that won't go down with the Federal government and the dollar will be those that are in some way, any way, prepared. We have so little time and so much to do. After the constant propaganda spiel proffered by central bankers of the Fed, government officials and the media it should be realized that time grows even shorter. Denial and misdirection are powerful indicators of the final correction.

States must begin to take effective steps to find ways to isolate themselves from the ultimate fiscal and financial degradations of the Federal government and the dollar. When this whole mess really starts to come undone, the more independent states will have the flexibility and ability to recover much better. Colorado already has some head starts on other states. However, we need to stretch our lead.

It is highly recommended for all Colorado legislators to read through the points by Ray McBerry on the link below. McBerry is a candidate for governor of Georgia who has put forth a comprehensive plan for a return to sovereignty in that state. It contains elements of the plan originally developed in Colorado during 1994 (the sequester fund to go with HJR94-1035-10th Amendment Resolution) as well as the Montana Gun bill and other ideas. Adding things such as HB09-1206 (developed by Rep. Lambert and Sen. Lundberg), for state payments made in gold and silver, makes it quite a package. Put together as a package of bills it offers a very powerful beginning to limit federal incursions in any state:

Those that follow the Austrian school of Economics do analysis based on behavior not statistical snapshot data. Watching the behavior is much more indicative of outcome than gross statistics spouted by the econometric, "scientistical" Keynesians. That's why they failed to see this coming. Austrians are much more attuned to the behavioral aspects of the capitalists, workers and consumers not the statistical output. That makes it much easier to forecast ahead of mainstream estimates for revenue drops based on the behavior rather than snapshot statistics. The process is well described in Mises, "Human Action."

Jeff Wright (a long-time, classic liberal activist living in El Paso County)
719.330.1358
jwright@timewarp.ws

Considerations To Be Addressed Prior To Voting FOR a Bill

2009-09-22T17:04:00.007-06:00

The following are filters I use when reviewing/developing proposed legislation:

The following questions must have "no" answers

Will it increase Government’s role in our lives and restrict individual liberty?
Will it decrease the recognition of the sanctity of life?
Will it be inconsistent with the clear meaning of the Bill of Rights?
Will it hinder the concept of Limited Government?
Will it erode the Rule of Law?
Will it undermine free markets, competition and/or commerce?
Will it erode personal responsibility and voluntary involvement by the average citizen?
Will it erode the personal empowerment of the individual citizen
Will it harm traditional families? Will it erode the traditional role of parents?
Will it increase fees or other costs to the individual citizen?
Will it place a damper on the spirit of “free enterprise”?
Will it erode the quality of K-12 education (Public, Charter, or Homeschool)
Will it negatively impact the spirit of private, non-coerced volunteerism
Will it negatively affect the faith community
Will it usurp its historic role of the Church as concerns the less fortunate?
Is this bill unnecessary at this time?
Does the bill fall outside the purview of the State Constitution?

All issues have their basis in morality.

One cannot separate morality from most issues. For example, when confronted with the issue of whether or not there should be legislation to cause State tax-dollars to fund a needle-exchange program, Rep. Tool, a Fort Collins Republican once stated that, “this is a health-care issue, not a morality issue”. On the contrary, I would consider this issue as dealing with BOTH, but would ask: Is it wise for the state to take action to eliminate the consequences of poor choices? It that the true role of government? I would say NO to both.

Exciting Website to Help Organize College Students to Fight Left-wing Bias on Campus

2009-09-12T11:14:00.004-06:00

Finally...a concerted effort is now underway to counter the left-wing bias college campuses across the U.S. On Tuesday, September 15 the Leadership Institute will launch www.CampusReform.org, a new social networking website for conservative student activists. Designed to help student groups promote conservative principles and fight liberal abuses at colleges and universities across the country. The website includes a unique subsite for each of the 2,376 four-year colleges and universities in the country and offers customizable pages for both student groups and individual users. And best of all...the site also features sections to review textbooks, rate professors, and report leftist abuses on campuses. There are also blogs for each campus group, four-year college, and a national blog.

CampusReform.org is open to current students, alumni, parents and members of the community. Be sure to sign up on Tuesday, September 15!

Colorado Union of Taxpayer Rankings for 2009

2009-08-19T09:55:00.004-06:00

As citizens and voters it is important that we are informed as to how our legislators vote on issues. See the Colorado Union of Taxpayer's 2009 rankings of Colorado's legislators here.

Genuine Conservative Appointed to Colorado's Joint Budget Committee

2009-08-17T07:47:00.006-06:00

Rep. Kent Lambert, member of the Republican Study Committee of Colorado, has just been appointed to Colorado's powerful Joint Budget Committee. In addition, Rep. Lambert has just been awarded the honor as House Taxpayer Champion, receiving a 100% rating by the Colorado Union of Taxpayers for his votes during the 2009 legislative session

I have worked closely with Rep. Lambert since 2005, and know him to be a stellar legislator.

Congrats, Kent.

Obama's list of czars

2009-08-15T18:26:00.002-06:00

For those interested in the latest list of Obama's czars, I would direct you to the following URL. Sadly we are seeing the creation of an exoskeleton around the President's cabinet and congress.

Telephone Snafu costs Colorado Taxpayers nearly $8M

2009-07-31T08:21:00.005-06:00

As a member of the Colorado Legislature for nearly nine years, and a member of the state's Legislative Audit Committee of four years, I am aghast at the waste of taxpayer dollars I see in virtually every area of government. I have called for an Audit of this particular program of offering welfare recipients assistance in payment of phone bills. IT IS NOT A FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT to take taxpayer money and pay for phone service for welfare recipients. Please read my Press Release Also read related article in Denver Post.

Schultheis Suggests Areas for Budget Cuts

2009-07-29T22:49:00.029-06:00

The apparent lack of urgency being given by the Governor’s office in finding budget cuts to counter the expected 2009-2010 fiscal budget shortfall of approximately $386 million seems unconscionable. In fact there are some of us who believe the shortfall could approaching $500 million, by the September estimates.

Instead of calling a Special Session for this August or September, Governor Ritter is planning to delay creating necessary legislation until the 2010 Legislature meets. This means that the legislature will have less than five months to deal with this huge deficit; the result will be cuts that are effectively double the shortfall amount. This again illustrates what some would call the Obamenomics philosophy of “hope for change” which we legislators have become all too used to with this Administration.

Some proposed cuts that I would recommend are as follows:

Freeze all advertising by government agencies
Freeze all agency promotional advertising
Freeze all future salary increases
Reduce the average state salaries by at least $101 million consistent with the report submitted to the State Audit Committee at its June meeting, which showed the average state employee’s salary exceeding that of a similar job within the private sector by 6%. (State government salaries should never be greater than those of the private sector.)
K-12 Education: Eliminate all pre-school programs
K-12 Education: Eliminate funding any advertising dollars by Public Schools
Education: Higher: Allow Universities to set tuition levels (this will promote more cost-consciousness by University officials)
Medicaid: Reduce program eligibility on all programs to 100% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
Medicaid: Eliminate all efforts to increase the numbers of Medicaid recipients, including through advertising
Medicaid: End all efforts to enroll still more uninsured in the Medicaid program or on welfare rolls. Runaway Medicaid programs must be reigned in.
Medicaid: Require larger co-payments for each office call.
Medicaid: Eliminate all or a number of the ten Medicaid-optional programs
Appeal to all religious and private charitable organizations throughout the state to help meet the growing physical, mental and financial needs within their communities. In this vein, develop a state referral program to such organizations willing to be involved.
Direct the State Patrol to get far tougher on identification of illegal aliens, since approximately $1.2 billion/yr of costs related to illegal immigration are passed on to citizens via government programs. In addition, order all government agencies to toughen their standards for screening individuals as to their legal residency status prior providing any benefits.
Cease all employee furlough programs. Instead, offset these “savings” with permanent cuts in equivalent numbers of FTE.
Cease consideration of ANY new “revenue enhancements” such as raising entrance fees for parks, etc. Citizens are becoming increasingly angry at government constantly demanding more and more of their hard-earned wages. Citizens should not be asked to bear the burden of government growth in times like this.
Cease Colorado's portion ($6.50/mo) of telephone subsidies for welfare recipients. This is NOT a function of government. It is not a right.
Cut funding for all programs and outreach efforts favoring minority groups over at the expense of the average taxpayer. Specifically, eliminate the Minority Business Office within the Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT). An agency that specifically deals with minorities and women is discriminatory on its face…and its actions. The time has well passed for the Governor’s office to end reverse discrimination and its “plantation mentality” when administering its programs. Such discrimination increases rather than reduces government dependence.
Identify and target each and every government program that increases individual dependency on government
Require that each state agency analyze its functions and determine which can be contracted out to private industry with a resulting decrease in state full-time employees
Eliminate or severely reduce state support of State Fair
Sell all remaining projected cash flow from the Tobacco Settlement Fund.
Arrange to eliminate state control of Unclaimed Property Fund and sell the liability for management of that with restrictions to a private firm.

It is time Governor Ritter’s administration faces this shortfall head-on; the sooner the better.

Cigarette Tax Exemption goes up in smoke. Colorado's Democrats extract $31 million from taxpayers for government programs

2009-05-04T12:33:00.000-06:00

In a final legislative push to take more money from taxpayers to fund government programs, Senate Democrats passed HB09-1342 (22/13) to eliminate the exemption from state sales taxes for cigarettes. This move will funnel an estimated $31 million from taxpayers (primarily the lower income) to Colorado’s general budget. All but one Republican voted NO.

“And the beat goes on.” The hunger for more and more dollars from citizens’ hard-earned salaries and wages to fund an ever-increasing number of government programs, will NEVER end until the politicians have taken all that citizens have to give, or until the citizens finally revolt. TEA-party participants unite!

Requiring Doctors to Test All Pregnant Women for HIV/AIDS (SB09-179)

2009-02-27T20:20:00.000-07:00

Much is being made of my comments on the floor of the Colorado Senate on Wednesday, February 25th with regard to Senate Bill 09-179 (as well as additional remarks taken out of context but printed in several media forums).

The proposed bill seeks to require doctors to test all pregnant women for HIV/AIDS, and would allow the woman an opportunity to opt-out.

When I first heard of the bill in the Health and Human Services Committee several days earlier, I was quite moved by testimony as to how such testing could assist an unborn baby, mitigating effects of his or her mother’s HIV/AIDS condition. As a result, I voted “Yes” in supporting the bill along with the rest of the committee.

Subsequent to the committee vote, and prior to my vote of “NO” on the floor, I wrestled with a number of issues regarding the bill. I sought counsel from quite a number of people for whom I have great respect. The primary question and the one I apply whenever any issue is brought up for discussion is: “Is this a proper role of government?”

Long-standing stigmas against out-of-wedlock sexual activity were put in place by societies to slow the spread of disease and deal with challenges of raising children without full family units. Our nation has walked away from those stigmas over the past half century…illegitimate birth rates are through the roof…some argue the true cause of poverty, criminal or substance abuse in our society can be primarily tied to the ills of out-of-wedlock births. It is a serious issue, but, as a caring nation, we try not to impose the mistakes of the parents on their children.

Related to the above, some also think society should remove long-standing stigmas against sexually-transmitted diseases regardless of the damage they inflict… However, sexually-transmitted diseases have devastated global communities for centuries. As a result, in Colorado and the rest of the United States we have set up a network of social and medical services to attempt to mitigate their spread and treat the afflicted.

Now we have HIV/AIDS. It is a very scary disease and has been since cropping up on the social scene over a quarter century ago. Its primary vector has been out-of-wedlock sexual activity. A small segment of our society has acquired the virus and suffers tremendously from it. Unfortunately, treatment of HIV/AIDS infection has been highly politicized and attempts to slow its spread with traditional community healthcare strategies have been compromised for years. I find it curious those who now seek to mandate testing all pregnant females regardless of their potential for infection oppose testing in other circumstances where a real and actual risk exists.

But the question still remains, “Is this a proper role of government?”

If you believe it is right and fitting to require testing for any particular health situation, should we then require it for other conditions or issues? Assuming we should test in all circumstances for HIV/AIDS, perhaps one could argue the legislature should require testing by physicians of any patient for any other variety of issues. How about residual cocaine use? Marijuana? Alcohol? I’m certain some could argue such testing would achieve lofty and compelling societal objectives, enabling doctors, health care providers, and others to know when to prescribe or direct intervention efforts. Should we then share those required test results with Children’s Protective Services? With law enforcement? Insurance companies? Our banks and credit unions? How about requiring testing for other conditions? Pregnancy for any female regardless of age? For cholesterol problems? High blood pressure? DNA testing to create a database to clear any person of alleged crime, or identify perpetrators? Should we use the results of any test to deny health care to patients deemed undeserving under any proposed national health care scheme where rationing takes place because of resource limits?

I find it interesting those who argue endlessly about a right-to-privacy are the first to demagogue on the issue, and seek intrusive testing. Unfortunately, as we have seen in the last election cycle, many think it is a government bureaucrat's role to make all decisions for us. This desire to intrude into our private personal spheres has become increasingly commonplace among lawmakers. Perhaps they think it shows they care about a particular issue more than we.

The conclusion I came to after hours of discussion and contemplation was that requiring testing was indeed an improper role of government.

So SB 179 was the catalyst for an important discussion. For those who take the concept of personal responsibility seriously, and oppose an intrusive government, this issue is important. Unfortunately, I made a comment to a reporter in haste that misspoke my position on this issue. That happens. It’s a risk for all those who work in the public eye.

Some now try to characterize my comments as “I don’t care” what happens to the baby. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to only pass laws that are within a proper role for government. Nothing more. These tests can be performed now without another government edict. That decision should be made by the mother and her doctor. I would hope doctors offer it to pregnant mothers under their care. Again, this can be done without any need for the passage of SB 179.

Let’s be very clear…no doctor is prevented from administering the HIV/AIDS test today, and no mother is being prevented from the benefit of these tests. The issue here is not the availability or advisability of such a test. Rather, should State Statutes require ALL doctors attempt to administer this test to ALL pregnant mothers in Colorado, especially when the incidence of such HIV/AIDS is extremely low?

As to my comments on the Senate Floor, they were as follows:

Thank you, Madam President. You know, this was a difficult bill for me. I voted "yes" in committee on it, because of discussions surrounding the fact that - well, let me just basically say this - basically it modifies the communicable disease control laws, and it requires that health care providers to test pregnant women for HIV, unless they opt out. That's the main part of this bill. I voted “yes” on it. I was a little bit troubled with my vote, and I was just wondering, what was bothering me. I woke up the next morning - Thursday morning - at 5 a.m., and I wrestled with this bill for another hour, from 5 to 6a.m.. And I finally came to the conclusion that I'm going to be a "no" vote on this. And I'm trying to think to, what the role of government is here. And I am not convinced that part of the role of government should not be to protect individuals from negative consequences of their actions. Sexual promiscuity as we know causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which obviously is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences: we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old to put their child in a small daycare center there. We do seem continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior - and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly. And I don't think that's the role of this body, and as a result of that I finally came to the conclusion that I have to be a "no" vote. Because this stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I can't vote on this bill, and I wanted to explain to the body why I'm going to be a "no" vote.

The above comments express my beliefs.

Black History Month Celebrates American Values

2009-02-19T08:58:00.000-07:00

Each February we pause to reflect upon the achievements and accomplishments of Black men and women. In 1926 Carter G. Woodson founded this tradition to recognize the contributions Black people have made to humanity. As an historian, author, educator, and in 1912, the second Black man to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard, Woodson himself is a wonderful example of what one person--devoted to an idea and dedicated to a task--can accomplish and contribute to the lives of many. The Black American legacy and heritage has bequeathed to generations of Americans a panorama of men and women, who have personified perseverance, determination, resilience, courage, faith, forgiveness, and hope.

Black history is not simply “Black” history; it is American history. The experience of Black Americans serves as inspiration to us all that when the struggles are grueling and the odds are against us, we don’t give up. We stand together. There is nothing more truly American than this collective determination to lift up what has been cast down, to right wrongs, to find solutions for shared problems, and to create a new and better hour.

In 1945 a young baseball player was summoned to the office of the Brooklyn Dodgers’ general manager. Branch Rickey told Jackie Robinson that he was looking for a ballplayer “with the guts not to fight back,” a phrase that is now legendary and which arose from the faith that was shared by Rickey and Robinson.

Years before Robinson had earned the reputation of a “mad brawler, always ready to smash in the teeth of any white man who insulted him.” Later on during his years at UCLA, he was influenced by Black preacher, Karl Downs, who taught Robinson that Christianity was not a synonym for racial submission. By 1945 Jackie was firmly convicted that God had a purpose for his life, and Branch Rickey’s challenge to Robinson was based on their shared faith and the words of Jesus, “Resist not evil: but whosoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." Through all the frustrations that lay ahead, Jackie Robinson’s Christian faith sustained him. The rest of Robinson’s life story is well-known sports history. . .Black history— and American history.

On July 4, 1812, John Jasper was born—the 24th child of Philip and Tina Jasper. A slave and a lay minister, Philip died a few months before John's birth. Tina prayed that God would make her son a preacher as his father had been, but John had no interest in spiritual things. He married a young slave girl on a neighboring plantation, but on the day of their wedding, a slave uprising caused the two plantation owners to separate the young couple. They never saw one another again, and John’s inconsolable grief and bitterness led him down an angry and malevolent road.

In 1839 while working in a factory, however, Jasper was suddenly convicted of the ruination that resentment and rancor had wrought upon his life and in that moment he asked God to save him. Thirty days after his baptism in 1840, he was licensed to preach by the Old African Baptist Church, and he didn't stop for more than sixty years!

Jasper’s passionate messages drew huge crowds, black and white, and in 1867, he founded the Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church in Richmond. The church began with nine members and at Jasper’s death in 1901 numbered nearly 2,000. John Jasper was just one of the many Black American preachers, who over the centuries, have helped to establish the centrality of faith, righteousness, and hope in the heart of Black history. . . and American history.

Thirty years ago, Star Parker was a single mother living on welfare. Her history included four abortions, drug abuse, promiscuity, and burglary. Today Star Parker, author and committed Christian, is the president and founder of the nonprofit Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education. Parker recalls the day that turned her life around. Having gone to church at the invitation of some Christian friends, she heard the pastor challenge his congregation with these words: "What are you doing living on welfare? The government is not your source!"

Parker was stunned by what she heard because government welfare was her source! In the twinkling of an eye, Star grasped the truth of her worldview. It had chained her to a life of spiritual and economic poverty. Parker often testifies that she was comfortable in the company of those who were rebellious, lazy, and unwilling to work when they could get welfare checks for nothing. When she committed the remainder of her life to God, all that entitlement thinking changed.

In Parker’s most recent book, Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do about It, she writes about the dangerous dependency that emerges among those who see government as their salvation and that long-term dependence on welfare leaves its recipients in emotional and spiritual poverty. Star’s conclusion, and I quote, is that "In our attempt to blame poverty on prejudice, we have taught the poor to be prejudiced against the basic values necessary to sustain a free and civil society . . . We've taught them there are no real absolutes to the human condition, except perhaps that the highest value in life is to acquire things."

Star Parker is making Black history. . .American history. . .and she joins a long line of human beings of all ethnicities, who have loved freedom. Parker shares the company of those in ages past who understood that if we are to preserve the traditions that define us and ensure that the precious rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are passed on to our descendants, then it requires from each generation of Americans certain attributes of character: accountability, resolve, initiative, responsibility for one’s own choices and actions, dignity, respect, the courage—and, yes, the freedom--to fail and then to rise up and try again.

Let me close with the words of Benjamin Banneker to Thomas Jefferson in a letter, written in August 1791. Born in 1731, Banneker was a self-educated Black American mathematician, astronomer, and surveyor. The portrait of this honorable and remarkable man is one of the most worthy to hang in the halls of Black History.

“Sir, Suffer me to recall to your mind that time in which the Arms and tyranny of the British Crown were exerted with every powerful effort, in order to reduce you to a State of Servitude... This, Sir, was a time in which you clearly saw into the injustice of a State of Slavery, and in which you had Just apprehensions of the horrors of its condition, it was now Sir, that your abhorrence thereof was so excited, that you publicly held forth this true and invaluable doctrine, which is worthy to be recorded and remembered in all Succeeding ages. 'We hold these truths to be Self evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that amongst these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'"

In-State Tuition Bill for Illegal Immigrants Skirts Intent of Law

2009-02-13T12:36:00.000-07:00

State Senator Chris Romer has proposed a bill, SB09-170, that would grant post-secondary in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. Sen. Romer reasons that it is unfair to punish children for the decisions of adults (their parents) who chose to enter America in direct violation of our immigration laws. The Romer bill is deeply flawed on multiple levels.

For starters, neither is it the fault of the children of tax-paying American citizens that native Mexican adults along with their children have crossed our sovereign borders and taken up illegal residence in the United States. American children are already being negatively impacted (‘punished,’ if you will) by the drain of dollars away from their K-12 education and into the massive accommodations being made for the children of illegals. It now appears that Sen. Romer also wishes to grant to illegal immigrants in-state college tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state American students.

Public schools from kindergarten through high school are already required by federal law to educate all children, regardless of their immigration status. Higher education, on the other hand, while coveted by some, is not a prerequisite for making a success of oneself in America, although the Higher Education elites such an education as "fact." In fact, many citizens hold only high school degrees or GED’s are business owners or are gainfully employed in essential occupations. Additionally, with colleges and universities placing limits on their enrollments, citizens, who do wish to pursue advanced degrees, will under this bill, have to compete with non-citizens for fewer available slots.

Ten other states have passed similar legislation, and currently find themselves embroiled in lawsuits filed against their respective state governments by citizens, who have every reasonable right to expect that government will work on their behalf. Citizens also have a reasonable right to expect that government will work against any requirement to provide what is tantamount to taxpayer-financed college educations for the grown children of people who illegally crossed U. S. borders.

Handing out in-state tuition to illegal immigrants is a slap in the faces of both legal immigrants and American citizens! For example, in California the average household must contribute at least $1,200 each year to subsidize the deficit between what illegal immigrants cost in services and what they pay in taxes.

Even if a good argument could be made for such poor policy, these ten states are announcing far and wide that illegal immigration is now an American institution replete with numerous benefits! These states have brazenly cast aside the constraints imposed by Congress and the U.S. Constitution, and inevitably, American citizens are challenging state governments over this inequitable law. The result will continue to be extensive and expensive litigation, and of course, taxpayers always foot the bill for court costs.

Should Sen. Romer’s bill pass through the Legislature, Coloradans will also contest bad policy. Additionally, out-of-state U.S. citizens and legal immigrants will rightfully request the same low in-state tuition benefits that are proposed for illegals. Financial resources that are much-needed for state infrastructure will be frittered away inside Colorado court rooms.

Let’s look at some realities:

Over the past three decades every “compassionate” gesture, designed to help immigrants assimilate—bilingual education, ever-expanding and new state welfare programs, the affirmation of a hyphenated identity, and the radical historical revisionism of southwestern American history—has actually proven to be harmful to the processes of assimilation and economic improvement for large portions of the Mexican-American community.
After 20 years in the country, even legal Mexican immigrants have double the welfare rates of American citizens. The high school dropout rates of Mexican-Americans (both second and third generation) are two and a half times that of other natives. By age 17 Mexican immigrants are 50 percent more likely to identify themselves as Mexicans, as opposed to Mexican-Americans. By the same token, many Mexicans, who are living in “apartheid” communities across the nation romanticize Mexico—a country which gave them nothing and prompted them to flee—and deprecate the United States, which provided them with sanctuary.
In Colorado approximately 57 percent of U.S. resident students of Hispanic heritage do not graduate from high school, despite the fact that every child in America, regardless of immigrant status, is guaranteed by law a K-12 education at taxpayer expense. Adding benefit upon benefit appears to have done little, if anything, to assist U.S. residents of Hispanic heritage to assimilate and advance their own cause.
Neither is it a foregone conclusion that providing in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants would result in a revenue advantage for the American economy. Expatriates enrich Mexico’s coffers with the U. S. dollars they earn in America. One study estimated that an approximate $13.3 billion goes south across the U. S.-Mexican border every year. It stands to reason then that much of taxpayers’ investment in higher education for illegals might very well flow into Mexican banks if graduates are able to obtain gainful employment.
Reputable employers will not violate the law by hiring an illegal alien either with or without a college degree. Of course there are those employers who will place profits above patriotism.

Apologists for such bills contend that illegal immigrants "do the work Americans won’t do." On the other hand, these same supporters of in-state tuition benefits declare it unfair that illegal immigrants are forced to work as unskilled laborers because they lack education. Which is it going to be?

Not only are the premises of this proposed bill contradictory to one another, but the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Section 505, provides that: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any post secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

Sen. Romer has craftily worded SB090-170 in such a way that one, if pressed, could argue that his bill can also be applied to citizens in high schools across the U.S. In truth, however, the wording of the bill, requiring a student to attend a Colorado high-school for at least three years, is cleverly designed to make available taxpayer-funded college educations primarily to students, who are illegally residing in Colorado. Romer’s bill is a deliberate evasion of the intent of current law. Legislators, who purposely attempt to sidestep the law, are doing a real disservice to the constituents whom they serve. I would strongly suggest that legislators, who are willing to play fast and loose with the principle of an existing law, reassess their motivations for remaining in office.

Ultimately, giving to illegal immigrants a benefit to which even all American citizens are not entitled, signifies a breach of trust by government--a government that is, first and foremost, duty-bound to extend compassion towards American children and to protect and defend all of her citizens. Weighing down the parents of American children with ever-increasing tax burdens, in order to provide benefits for illegal immigrants, sends a loud and clear message to citizens. Lamentably, that message is neither one of fair play nor compassion.

Why I couldn't vote for "Civility"

2009-02-08T17:19:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, I found myself the ONLY Senator who voted against HJR09-1004, the Civility Resolution., a Resolution that has been run annually since 2006. The House voted on this earlier in the session, February 3rd. I was the only one in either the House or Senate who refused to vote for what I considered a senseless Joint Resolution.

Before the Senate vote, I rose and spoke (the only Republican as I recall). Several Democrats gushed over how wonderful it was.

My reasons:

While I mentioned that my perception has been that over the past several decades I have observed that society has become more harsh and less tolerant of one another, yet in my nine years in the legislature (six in the House and three in the Senate, I have not noticed any pervasive or growing lack of civility in either of those bodies. Yes...while there has been an occasional outburst by one member or another, it has usually been followed promptly by an apology at the mic.

During my brief comments made at the Well, I mentioned that in all my nine sessions in the legislature, I have been witness to very few occasions of lack of civility...certainly not enough to require a Resolution to bring this to our attention. I mentioned that in the current legislature, I was

perhaps the only person who has been screamed at on the floor of the House by the Speaker of his own party, primarily because I wasn't a "team player on a particular bill."
perhaps the only legislator who has been cussed at, "you gd s.o.b. racist" by a black member of the opposite party who falsely interpreted my views on illegal immigration as being racist.

Yet...while I don't condone such outbursts and lack of civility and respect, I do forgive those legislators who occasionally "lose it." because the pressures sometimes become so great that emotions can temporarily overcome reason and decorum.

Since, it is my belief that man is basically sinful, (an idea held by our founding fathers, but often disparaged today) I realize that there are times one will occasionally "go off." Hopefully, my religious underpinnings will not allow me to respond in kind.

That said...such Resolutions have virtually no real value except to make one feel good.

Comments on E-verify Bill

2009-02-08T14:47:00.000-07:00

Last week, I presented SB09-023 to Colorado's Senate State and Military Affairs Committee. The purpose of the bill is to require all non-government employers (the government is already required to do so) to utilize the federal government's E-verify system to verify the legal work-status of all newly-hired employees. The bill will require all non-government employers, but phases adherence over couple years, beginning with large employers of 200+ employees.

There was compelling non-partisan testimony. One of those testifying delivered one of the most comprehensive testimonies I've heard over the prior two years in which I have introduced this bill. It was so well-articulated that I post it below for your information.

Dear Senators,
Thank you for introducing SB09-023 regarding E-verify and giving me a chance to testify. Regardless of people's opinion on what to do about illegal immigration, most agree that requiring employers to obey the law is critical. The question was asked, how reliable is it: E-verify is 99.5% accurate--coming from Hewlett-Packard's Global Software business, I can assure you this is extremely good.
A government investigation of E-Verify in 2007 found:

93% of employees queried through the system were verified within 5 seconds!
another 1.2% were verified within 24 hours with no additional action required of either the employee or the employer
Most of the 5.8% who received a tentative non-confirmation requiring more time turned out to be illegal aliens
only 0.5% were U.S. citizens or authorized foreign workers who had to contact the Social Security Administration because of errors in the database

Of the .05% the errors were ones that the workers themselves had made, such as a woman not notifying Social Security of a change in last name after a marriage. And even if the error was the government's fault, going through E-Verify was a positive experience for most because they needed to know the error existed so they could clean it up before it caused problems down the line. There are 100,000 companies using this currently and there hasn't been one person who was legally able to work in the US that has been let go due to E-verify.

This has to be looked at in terms of trade offs. When we vaccinate our children, we don't have 100% assurance that the vaccine won't cause side affects or even death. But we go ahead because the risk of that illness is much worse. Is it worth denying hundreds of thousands of unemployed legal workers a chance at jobs because one or two may get a false negative and need to deal with Social Security to straighten it out? If we were to follow this logic of 100% accuracy, we would have to say then is it worth even one legal worker committing an act of violence because they cannot find work, even one student who now not attend college because their parents are out of work or they themselves cannot finance their college because of illegal immigration? We must move forward. The Federal government has delayed E-verify for Federal Contractors when we are about to embark in billions of dollars in construction projects--this is due to the tremendous pressure that they are receiving from cheap labor interests. Just like the incredible pressure you are receiving. How will we explain to the citizens of Colorado, that their tax money will be going to hire illegal immigrants when they themselves are out of work? How will we explain that we did not even see fit to at least debate this in the Senate?

Regarding the testimony of the paid lobbyists against using E-verify, please remember that the hotel, food service, and restaurant industry are among the industries with the highest percent of illegal workers at 25%. They made all kinds of excuses why not to use E-verify, but the truth is they do not want to give up their cheap labor. E-verify doesn't even apply to current workers only new workers. It is unconscionable to enable employers to continue to break the law. I ask that SB023 at least has a chance to be debated in the Senate--this is the least we can do for the 267,000 Colorado citizens who are out of work.

Here is my testimony of 2/4/09--most of which I did not get through due to the time limit:

I am a life long Democrat and a retired Vice-President of Hewlett-Packard. I have lived 30 years in Ft. Collins and have over 30 years of human resource experience.
I, along with many of my Democrat colleagues, am in favor of passing SB09-023, requiring private employers to utilize the federal government's E-verify program
It is inexcusable for us to allow employers to break the law and hire people who are in this country illegally whether entering this country illegally or over staying their visas.
Ensuring employers hire only legal workers is he most effective method of dealing with the issue of illegal immigration; this dries of the job magnet and people here illegally will leave on their own;
The impact of allowing illegal actions by employers has done several things:

By having an endless supply of cheap labor, it has created a slave class of employees who receive terrible wages and over burdening state infrastructure because they cannot support themselves. Plus, in Colorado, we are spending $1.1 billion extra in education, health care, and incarceration alone in subsidizing cheap labor interests.
It has also reduced wages for all the workers in the industry where people are hired illegally, most particularly hurting the working poor, especially minorities. In fact, in construction before the slowdown, 17% of construction workers in the US were here illegally and the wages have fallen to 1967 wages--this is not fair nor sustainable
We have 267,000 unemployed Coloradans looking for jobs, while we still have at least 275,000 illegal immigrants (per Pew Hispanic Trust) in the state, taking jobs away from legal workers. In this economic environment there are no "jobs Americans won't do." Just this week's Ft. Collins Coloradoan, it reports over 1000 people lining up for 160 jobs for Loveland's Embassy Suites, paying $8-10/hour. They expect as many at the second job fair for the same 160 jobs.

As Democrats, we need to stand up for American workers in this country. We need to hold employers feet to the fire
Since retiring, I have provided HR consulting to small companies. I have worked with companies who obey the law. However, I have had several Ft. Collins employers brag to me how they hire only illegal immigrants at cheap rates; how they do not pay payroll taxes and don't pay time and a half for overtime, etc. This flagrant action w/o impunity allows them to get rich and the poor to suffer. It is inexcusable.
You will hear from business lobbyists that using e-verify is too burdensome--as an expert in HR, I can tell you this is a complete fabrication to ensure their access to cheap labor. Using E-verify takes seconds; over 100,000 employers currently use it and it is 99.5% accurate. In fact many honest companies also require seeing a valid driver's license, birth certificate or passport as proof of legal residency; and many, even small firms, do back ground checks or drug tests to protect themselves. E-verify is not a burden.
Just having employers use E-verify will discourage illegal immigrants from applying; this is happening in Arizona. I can speak from experience, that whenever we started drug testing at a Hewlett-Packard site, very few failed the drug test--those using drugs were deterred from applying.
Ensuring all employers hire people legally ensures an even playing field. I have a friend who owns a drywall business and always hired legally; he was put out of business 2 years ago because he could not compete with the unscrupulous employers who knowingly broke the law, hiring people illegally for extremely low wages. Why are we rewarding those who disobey the law and make it impossible for those obeying the law to compete? This is inexcusable and bad for business.
Another friend who does house painting also has had to get food stamps and is applying for other assistance, because he cannot compete with the wages paid by companies hiring people illegally. This was long before the building slowdown. My friend who cleans houses has had to continuously lower her fees--over the last 5 years. This has had real impact to real people.
Some will say dealing with the impacts of illegal immigrations is the federal governments' responsibility--frankly, Colorado citizens cannot wait. The impact is here--with state costs, with our working men and women, especially the working poor. The burden is at the state level, not in Washington. Doing something also sends a strong message to Washington that we need to listen to our citizens and stand up for our workers.
E-verify is a simple solution that enables an even playing field for businesses; allows people to compete for jobs for fair wages; will help improve our economy by putting more money in the hands of our workers and kept in the US; and reduce State spending for health care, incarceration and education by up to $1.1 billion. The time is now; Gov. Ritter said he would help businesses verify citizenship when hiring; let's be true to that promise.

Thank you to the committee for working on this critical bill and thank you for serving in the Senate for us. Please feel free to contact me if I can help you in any way.
Trudy Haines

2009-02-06T15:36:00.000-07:00

Let me begin by highlighting three of my more favorite quotes so that you can begin to gather information as to who I am:

"When the principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then the battle is your calling, and peace has become sin. You must at the price off dearest peace lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy with all the fire of your faith." --- Abraham Kuyper

"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." --- Gilbert K. Chesterson

"I never give them hell. I just give them the truth, and they think it's hell" --- Harry S. Truman