What Inspired Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Passion to Risk His Life for the Civil Rights Movement?

During my prior eight years as a Colorado Legislator (6 as a State Representative and 2 as a State Senator) I was exposed to the annual Legislative celebration of Martin Luther King's birthday.  Each year, I saw the Republicans remain mostly silent as the Democrats made political "hay" over this great man, while they seemingly using it to draw recognition to themselves as aligning their Party to MLK and to the Civil Rights Movement.  Never once was there reference to what drove this great man to stand so firm against injustice.

Not unlike other great men and women in history such as William Wilberforce and others, something inspired MLK to put his life on the line for his beliefs.  What was that "something?"  It seemed to e that what actually gave this great man so much courage should be the main focus of any celebration, because without it there may never have been such a profound change in the civil rights movement. .  Many of us have goals we would like to fulfill, but most of those goals are not pursued because of the fear of retribution, fear of criticism, and other forms of resistance;  understanding MLK's source of drivenness may also inspire us.

So...inspired by that thought, I decided to prepare the following remarks for four Senators to be first delivered on the Colorado Senate floor, January 15th, 2009.

Senator Schultheis' remarks:

Legislators...Watch those Bills

Vigilance Needed from Legislators to Protect Liberty

During my decade as a Colorado legislator, it became evident that most legislators fail to use a limited-government filter when drafting legislation.  To further our freedoms, individual liberties must be considered first and foremost when evaluating legislation.  Much legislation is simply created as a response to current events of the day with little or no regard to long-range consequences.  The result, most often is a growth in the power and control of the bureaucracy over the individual. While legislation is generally proposed with good intentions, it is too-often crafted at the expense of the personal liberty of the citizens represented.

Observing this trend, caused me to develop a heightened sensitivity to the erosion of personal liberty, which in turn led me to adopt the philosophy of voting NO on bills that could not be proven to advance liberty or prevent its erosion in some way.  To create a degree of voting consistency based on limited government, I developed a set of filters which I used when analyzing each piece of legislation.  Some will say the list is too long; I submit, however that its very length indicates the many ways our personal liberties can be usurped. 

 Although this list was initially crafted as a guide for Colorado's state legislators, many of the questions would equally apply to  City Council members and County Commissioners as they too pass regulations, resolutions and the like that affect the individual liberties of the citizens they represent.

The following is a list of "filters" that if considered by politicians would hopefully reduce the frequent erosion of our personal liberties.

A “YES” to ANY of the following questions should  trigger a “NO” vote from conservative legislators.

        

• Does the bill limit personal liberty/freedom, personal responsibility or free enterprise?
• Does the bill exert greater government influence over our personal lives or that of the business community?
• Does the bill allow the government to meddle in free enterprise?
• Does the bill increase taxes, fees, or regulation costs on individuals or businesses?
• Could the bill eventually lead to an increase in taxes/fees or violate the spirit or intent of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights? 
• Does the bill erode an individual's property rights in any form?
• Does the bill redistribute wealth?
• Does the bill promote equality rather than equal opportunity?
• Does the bill concern itself with groups rather than individual citizens?
• Does the bill infringe on the rule-of-law?
• Does the bill in any way promote illegal immigration? 
• Does the bill fall outside the purview of the U.S. or state constitution?
• Does the bill negatively impact the traditional family?
• Does the bill lessen the authority of the parents over their children?
• Does the bill negatively impact the faith community or an individual’s right of conscience?
• Does the bill usurp the historical role of the religious community
• Does the bill run counter to traditional moral values?
• Does the bill negatively affect the sanctity of life?
• Does the bill further entangle the state with the Federal government? (or receive Federal funds)? see WSJ Article:
  http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-l-buckley-how-congress-bribes-states-to-give-up-power-1419541292
• Does bill increase the state’s budget over that of the previous year?
• Does the bill allow for funding through gifts, grants and donations?(i.e.by special-interest groups) 
• Does the bill increase a citizen’s dependency on government services?
• Does the bill allow increased government influence on K-12-aged children (i.e. Pre-Kindergarten, Full-day Kindergarten, or daycare?) 
• Does the bill require one or more government agencies to collect personal or business data?
• Does the bill reduce transparency of government operations?
• Does the bill diminish local control?
• Does the bill reduce a person's right to self-defense?
• Does the bill decrease the integrity of the voting system in any manner?
• Does the bill refer to "comprehensive" changes? 
• Does the bill transfer money from a specific-use cash-fund account for a non-related use?
• Does the bill’s passage seem to be advocated by organized “stakeholder” groups (stakeholder groups almost always require taxpayer dollars to further their future income under the guise of "helping" others.)

Legislators should "vote their Districts"...right or wrong?

 

What does it mean when legislators say, "I vote my district?"  Throughout a decade as a state Representative and Senator, I witnessed confusion among fellow legislators over what it meant to represent one's district.  There was a genuine lack of understanding as to what that really meant.

Republican Legislators, for the most part are elected by their constituency with the expectation that they will uphold the U.S., State Constitution and the Rule of Law, knowing that those two key principles create constancy and certainty within our society.  While agreement to these two principles is an frequent mantra by Republican candidates, the adherence to them, once elected, is too often overlooked or ignored when reviewing legislation when faced with self-serving demands of constituents.


Candidates will often promise that:  Once elected, I will represent this district." 

Disgruntled constituents often confront their legislators with, "You were elected to represent your district." 

Legislators, once in office, then face the dilemma of having to choose between their understanding of "voting their district," or voting consistent with the conservative principles they espoused during the campaign.  

These commonly heard cries by legislators and constituents turn into an excuse for some legislators to deviate from principles as they ponder their vote on controversial legislation.

 So, what then are a Republican legislator's responsibilities to his/her constituents when faced with an apparent conflict?

1. To Vote as consistently as possible, in line with the Party's conservative principles.  The goal of holding to consistent voting patterns based on principle provides confidence among constituents and reinforces the value of that principle in the eyes of other legislators.
2. To explain your votes to constituents, using reasoning based on the Party's conservative principles. Such explanations will reinforce the value of these principles to others.
3. To uphold the Rule of Law in all voting decisions.  Decisions consistent with the Rule of Law are fundamental to an orderly society.

The Perceived Dilemma: 
Republican lawmakers are often faced with the perception that some legislation will not be received well by their constituents.  More often than not, Republicans are faced with such dilemmas more often than their Democrat counterparts. Democrat lawmakers inherently craft solutions to issues that will seek immediate "relief" to constituents' needs.  Republican solutions generally address issues with longer-term solutions.  Consequences of "solutions" put forth by Democrats generally require greater government involvement and erosion of one's individual liberty, while Republican solutions generally require the individual to assume personal responsibility.

A couple examples come to mind:

First example:  Let's say legislation comes before the Agriculture Committee requiring all employers to ensure, through the Federal E-verify Program, that all newly-hired employees hired are legally present in the United States.  Although hiring of illegal aliens is unlawful, it is rarely monitored, and as such many ranchers and farmers are willing to assume the risk of federal penalties as they hire such labor.  Legislators representing such areas know their constituents rely on this illegal alien labor to make a profit.  What to do? For those legislators more political than principled, this can present a dilemma.

While campaigning, Republicans can be quite vocal in convincing their constituents that they will work hard to uphold the Rule of Law.  It is fundamental to our political system that all persons be treated justly and fairly within the law; that no man is above the law.  As a Republican legislator, pledged to uphold the Constitution, the Rule of Law must be viewed as paramount when assessing this legislation. 

Second example:  A bill comes before the legislature that requires each person wishing to vote to provide proof of citizenship.  A legislator representing a heavily Hispanic area becomes convinced that if he/she votes for the bill that he/she may not be reelected at the next election cycle.  What to do?

Election Integrity is paramount to the foundation of our Republic.  Therefore regardless of any resistance, intimidation or otherwise, the legislator should feel compelled to vote in favor of the Voter ID bill.  Following the vote, it will be necessary to explain this vote to some constituents.

"Representing one's District" does not necessitate pandering to a particular segment of constituents to gain short-term favor at the expense of those conservative principles advocated during a campaign cycle.  Instead, reinforce conservative principles at every opportunity;  they are the best for constituents over the long term.

Republicans Must Embrace Liberty Message

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.

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

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

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