Although the Colorado GOP has sent a "cease and desist" order to Denver Dan to tell him to stop using the word "Republican," Denver Dan's website still has not complied.
Precisely to avoid confusion of other organizations with the official political party, Colorado Revised Statutes, in addition to the state party bylaws, prohibit the use of the word "Republican" without the consent of the Republican Party.
Denver Dan has clearly co-opted the name of a political party to engage in activities that the party officials did not authorize. And he started his poorly-thought out campaign right before the precinct caucus.
Dan Green (sounds like "gangrene") has taken it upon himself to purge the party from afar, regardless of the consequences to the locals. Had he contacted the state party leadership, he would have known that his plan was almost certain to enrage his targets and motivate them to show up to caucus and assembly. Worse, he didn't feel any qualms about poisoning our well from his vantage position on the Denver side of the Great Divide. Instead of uniting an already fractious bunch, he provoked unwarranted suspicion of locals, again from the safety of his undisclosed location. He thought nothing of troubling waters where he didn't have to swim. He didn't consider the consequences before mailing his malodorous missives.
The Central Committee is responsible for removal proceedings against members and leadership. Not Dan Green.
Quite simply, Robert's Rules establish a process by which party members and leaders can be brought to show cause why they should not be dismissed by a vote of the Central Committee.
Denver Dan, had he bothered to consult with the state party leadership about his plans and the name of his organization, might have learned that his attempt to purge the local party was doomed to fail and to be in fact the pure opposite of help. Given the composition of that very body, which now includes even more opposition party candidate sympathizers and supporters, action against such individuals seems highly improbable.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Another reason not to vote for the opposition party candidates
This year, the number of GOP delegates from each precinct is determined by how many votes President Bush got in that precinct in 2004; for Democrats, it is the number of votes that went to U. S. Sen. Ken Salazar.
By voting for the opposition party, a voter adds to the number of delegates the opposition party receives at their respective county assembly. By so doing, that voter contributes to the strength and voice of the opposition party, right there in their own neighborhood precinct.
By publicly supporting the opposition party candidate, a voter not only has added to the number of delegates that opposition party receives, but is actively recruiting other voters to support and vote for the opposition party's candidate.
Those who continue to actively or unapologetically support the opposition party or its candidates are manifestly unsuitable for leadership positions in the party with which they affiliate. Some have done so and claimed it was a matter of conscience.
They're correct.
As a matter of conscience, those individuals should re-evalute their divided loyalties and decide with which group of people they feel most like-minded, then either change their behavior or change their affiliation.
It is less than honest for any party leader to profess loyalty and service to their own political party while actively and publicly supporting--and therefore joining forces with--the candidates of its opposition.
At the very least, such dual-allegiance leaders would do well to leave leadership to those loyal to the organization to which they have pledged allegiance.
By voting for the opposition party, a voter adds to the number of delegates the opposition party receives at their respective county assembly. By so doing, that voter contributes to the strength and voice of the opposition party, right there in their own neighborhood precinct.
By publicly supporting the opposition party candidate, a voter not only has added to the number of delegates that opposition party receives, but is actively recruiting other voters to support and vote for the opposition party's candidate.
Those who continue to actively or unapologetically support the opposition party or its candidates are manifestly unsuitable for leadership positions in the party with which they affiliate. Some have done so and claimed it was a matter of conscience.
They're correct.
As a matter of conscience, those individuals should re-evalute their divided loyalties and decide with which group of people they feel most like-minded, then either change their behavior or change their affiliation.
It is less than honest for any party leader to profess loyalty and service to their own political party while actively and publicly supporting--and therefore joining forces with--the candidates of its opposition.
At the very least, such dual-allegiance leaders would do well to leave leadership to those loyal to the organization to which they have pledged allegiance.
County will cast e-votes in 2006: Voters can use new touch-screen devices
Thursday, April 13th 2006
By Steve Grazier | Journal Staff Writer
New technology in the form of e-voting is on the way to Colorado and Montezuma County.
"I like the paper trail we have now."
-Carol Tullis Montezuma County clerk
Along with the state’s other 63 counties, Montezuma is set to receive touch-screen, electronic-voting machines in time for use during the August primary.
Clerk Carol Tullis said 13 machines are on tap with one each to be placed at the county’s 11 polling locations.
In addition, the clerk and recorder’s office is slated to have a voting device for early voting and another for absentee votes.
New machines for this year’s primary and general election are an option for voters, according to Tullis, who said the widgets are an addition to the paper-ballot format the county currently uses.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that one e-voting apparatus be at every polling place by 2006, she said.
Unfamiliarity with Diebold Election Systems’ TSX touch-screen model — with a voter-verifiable printer — is a reason to not be entirely sold on the new format, Tullis said. However, the method is likely a future means of voting, she said.
“Until we go through an election, I won’t know all the capabilities of the machines,” she said. “I like the paper trail we have now, and I don’t want to lose that.”
One benefit of the electronic device is that it doesn’t allow people to vote for too many candidates listed on the ballot, Tullis said.
If electors choose to use the touch-screen method, they will receive a voter card — similar to a credit card — from an election judge at a precinct. The card allows individuals to access their ballot style, which includes candidates and questions for which electors are eligible to vote.
Durango ColoradoReal Estate
“Instead of getting a paper ballot, voters will receive a card with all ballot information,” said Tullis, who added that the county hopes to have machines in place prior to the Aug. 8 primary.
Overall, the new voting devices cost about $3,200 each. Money to pay for the machines is to come from a $75,000 state election grant, Tullis said.
“This shouldn’t cost the county anything initially, but we’ll have to maintain and upgrade the machines over time,” she said.
The main reason for e-voting stems from the 2002 voting act, which is a federal measure requiring all states to provide a voting device in every polling location accessible for people with disabilities, including the blind and hearing impaired. Machines are to give these people the same opportunity that other voters have to cast their ballots privately and independently.
Head-sets with vocal ballot information and braille pads for the blind are aspects of the new voting devices, said Tullis, who indicated the amount of extraordinary-needs voters in the county is minimal.
“We’ve never had special requests from handicapped voters,” she said. “But we have allowed for assistance with a friend or family member.”
Reach Steve Grazier at steveg@cortezjournal.com.
Help write the book on Mesa Verde
By Steve Grazier | Journal Staff Writer
New technology in the form of e-voting is on the way to Colorado and Montezuma County.
"I like the paper trail we have now."
-Carol Tullis Montezuma County clerk
Along with the state’s other 63 counties, Montezuma is set to receive touch-screen, electronic-voting machines in time for use during the August primary.
Clerk Carol Tullis said 13 machines are on tap with one each to be placed at the county’s 11 polling locations.
In addition, the clerk and recorder’s office is slated to have a voting device for early voting and another for absentee votes.
New machines for this year’s primary and general election are an option for voters, according to Tullis, who said the widgets are an addition to the paper-ballot format the county currently uses.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that one e-voting apparatus be at every polling place by 2006, she said.
Unfamiliarity with Diebold Election Systems’ TSX touch-screen model — with a voter-verifiable printer — is a reason to not be entirely sold on the new format, Tullis said. However, the method is likely a future means of voting, she said.
“Until we go through an election, I won’t know all the capabilities of the machines,” she said. “I like the paper trail we have now, and I don’t want to lose that.”
One benefit of the electronic device is that it doesn’t allow people to vote for too many candidates listed on the ballot, Tullis said.
If electors choose to use the touch-screen method, they will receive a voter card — similar to a credit card — from an election judge at a precinct. The card allows individuals to access their ballot style, which includes candidates and questions for which electors are eligible to vote.
Durango ColoradoReal Estate
“Instead of getting a paper ballot, voters will receive a card with all ballot information,” said Tullis, who added that the county hopes to have machines in place prior to the Aug. 8 primary.
Overall, the new voting devices cost about $3,200 each. Money to pay for the machines is to come from a $75,000 state election grant, Tullis said.
“This shouldn’t cost the county anything initially, but we’ll have to maintain and upgrade the machines over time,” she said.
The main reason for e-voting stems from the 2002 voting act, which is a federal measure requiring all states to provide a voting device in every polling location accessible for people with disabilities, including the blind and hearing impaired. Machines are to give these people the same opportunity that other voters have to cast their ballots privately and independently.
Head-sets with vocal ballot information and braille pads for the blind are aspects of the new voting devices, said Tullis, who indicated the amount of extraordinary-needs voters in the county is minimal.
“We’ve never had special requests from handicapped voters,” she said. “But we have allowed for assistance with a friend or family member.”
Reach Steve Grazier at steveg@cortezjournal.com.
Help write the book on Mesa Verde
Breaking News from the Durango Herald Online: State legislators vote to tweak Electoral College
April 11, 2006
| Herald Denver Bureau DENVER - Colorado became the first state to consider a new plan for popular election of the president on Monday.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved it on a 4-3 party-line vote, with Democrats prevailing. It would allow Colorado to enter into a pact with other states to pledge their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the national popular vote. A group called National Popular Vote is pushing the idea to legislatures nationwide.
Currently, the president is elected in 51 separate votes in the states and the District of Columbia. The states then appoint electors, who hold the power to choose the president.
In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election because George W. Bush took the most electoral votes. In 2004, it would have taken just 60,000 Ohio voters to swing the election to John Kerry, despite a large popular vote win by Bush.
The bill by Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver, spurred a lively debate on American traditions among the committee's lawyers, professors and history teachers.
"What you are trying to do is change 200 years of custom and practice," said state Sen. Jim Dyer, R-Centennial.
The Constitution's framers thought of themselves as representing states and had no experience in running a national government, said Sen. Dan Grossman, D-Denver.
"We now have over 200 years of experience in doing that. We have adopted our identity as Americans," Grossman said.
But Republicans argued against reducing the power of states.
 |
"The existence of states is not a historical oddity but a fact of life in the United States," said Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield.
The Constitution, however, starts with the words "We the People," said Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins.
"Is it the state, or are human beings sovereign as citizens?" Bacon said.
It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. But proponents of Gordon's bill say Article II Section 1 of the Constitution gives them the power to carry out their plan.
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors," for the purpose of electing the president, according to the Constitution.
The compact would not take effect until states with at least 270 electoral votes - the majority - signed on to the deal.
The full Senate will be the next to debate the bill. Gordon is running for secretary of state - the official who oversees elections.
jhanel@durangoherald.com
Determining the True Will of the Assembly
Everyone present at the recent Mesa County Republican Assembly bears some part of the responsibility for the unauthorized votes that were cast and counted. A number of people didn't register and therefore dishonestly voted--without any care at all for the impact of their actions on the integrity of the assembly and therefore of the results. And clearly a number of people were content to keep silent about it, sit in their seats, and watch the clock.
Dishonesty. Complacency. These are the seeds of corruption. And what is corrupt? What is corruption?cor·rupt·ed, cor·rupt·ing, cor·rupts
Some individuals did not conduct themselves or their duty in an honest manner, which opened the way for dishonesty to creep in. Americans know corruption when they see it, but are slow to see it in themselves or their associates. Too often people look the other way despite cost or consequences.
Here are a few of them:
Those who participate in assembly have a civic duty to protect the integrity of the proceedings and prevent corruption. If that means taking the time to do it right, so be it. Those who don't have the time or can't clear their schedules to make the time should not accept election as delegates, alternates or committee people.
First, despite the rules of the assembly proceedings which provide for anyone to stand and be recognized by the chair, nobody did. The Credentials Committee Report announced 435 authorized votes--435 delegates, elected officials, and party executive board members that registered on time and were on their precinct credentials list. No precinct committee people stood to ask for help and say that they had more people sitting with them than were on their list of those who had checked in.
In addition, after the first vote results were reported, the number of votes cast clearly exceeded the number authorized. At that point, anyone either from the floor or on the stage could have stood up and motioned for the precincts to recheck those sitting with them with their list of those who had registered. Nobody did.
Furthermore, the rules provide for a roll-call procedure. People who have such pressing business that they can't take the time to do this right should not be delegates or committee chairpeople. The credentialling, the nomination of candidates, the vote, and the roll-call are the most important business of that day. Those who pressured the chair to suspend the roll-call bear a great deal of responsibility for removing the keystone of the checks and balances system that protects the integrity of the vote. The roll-call is designed to publicly check the number of each precinct's votes with the number they were authorized and to provide an immediate opportunity to the body of the assembly to cause the chair of each precinct to dismiss unauthorized voters from their precinct so that only authorized voters are voting--and then pause for the authorized voters to revote, count, and report aloud the results.
To continue, the agenda for the assembly included the Delegation Poll, but some precinct chairs did not check the names of those voting on their Precinct Credentials Report with those actually sitting with them. Several precinct chairs (also known as committee people) obviously did not do this and thus allowed unauthorized voting in their precinct. There have even been reports that unregistered delegates arrived very, very late and unseated the registered alternate who was thus seated as an authorized and registered delegate.
Thus, there was a series of checkpoints intended to catch and check dishonest voting, but they all failed because nobody stood up.
Colorado Revised Statutes 1-13-301. Fraud at precinct caucus, assembly or convention.
Yes, we are all guilty.
We should therefore resolve to do what we can to catch and correct errors, right wrongs and reject vengeance. We should seek out and learn our duties. We should encourage courtesy and respect for others' responsibilities and rights. We should seek out the company of those who can help us. We should stand up when something seems amiss. We should have the courage to insist on honesty and avoid dishonesty in our conduct--and in our companionship. We should know, accept and obey rules and laws rather than look for opportunities to save time and take shortcuts. Our nation's founders and their conduct of caucuses, assemblies and conventions--under the most trying of circumstances-- have set a high standard, but it is one that must be kept by all who profess to be Americans.
Dishonesty. Complacency. These are the seeds of corruption. And what is corrupt? What is corruption?cor·rupt·ed, cor·rupt·ing, cor·rupts
- Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
- Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
- Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.
- Archaic. Tainted; putrid.
- To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.
- To ruin morally; pervert.
- To taint; contaminate.
- To cause to become rotten; spoil.
- To change the original form of (a text, for example).
- Computer Science. To damage (data) in a file or on a disk.
Some individuals did not conduct themselves or their duty in an honest manner, which opened the way for dishonesty to creep in. Americans know corruption when they see it, but are slow to see it in themselves or their associates. Too often people look the other way despite cost or consequences.
Here are a few of them:
- The assembly election results and materials are now part of the public record for anyone's examination and commentary, including the opposition party.
- The results were sufficiently unclear that at least one candidate may have improperly been deprived of access to the ballot.
- Such an affected candidate is thus left with the burden of petitioning onto the ballot to correct an inequity he or she did not cause.
- Candidates who thought they had a lock on the ballot now face the possibility of a contested Primary election.
- People who want to stand up now and help make things right feel a duty to sign the affected candidate petitions. Others want to come to the aid of affected candidates by circulating petition segments. This takes people away from their families, both to circulate and to sign.
- Some people are upset about these developments.
- Candidates who received at least 30% of the corrupted vote count have been handed both their moment of triumph and the less decisive defeat of their challenger.
- After the end of May, the clerk is required to produce the ballot with the assembly candidates and those who petitioned onto the ballot.
- In August, voters at large will be presented with the ballot based on the unclear results of the assembly.
- Those ballots will be produced with taxpayer dollars.
Those who participate in assembly have a civic duty to protect the integrity of the proceedings and prevent corruption. If that means taking the time to do it right, so be it. Those who don't have the time or can't clear their schedules to make the time should not accept election as delegates, alternates or committee people.
Such work is often time-consuming, inconvenient and even uncomfortable. Independence Hall in Philadelphia wasn't air conditioned, but our nation first declared its independence there and later arose there from the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention.
Despite these models of American governance and proceedings at the grassroots level, for thus they were, county assembly participants did not ascertain the true will of the body and therefore cannot promulgate it to the ballot.
Where did the county assembly go wrong and fail to answer the purpose for which it was convened?
First, despite the rules of the assembly proceedings which provide for anyone to stand and be recognized by the chair, nobody did. The Credentials Committee Report announced 435 authorized votes--435 delegates, elected officials, and party executive board members that registered on time and were on their precinct credentials list. No precinct committee people stood to ask for help and say that they had more people sitting with them than were on their list of those who had checked in.
In addition, after the first vote results were reported, the number of votes cast clearly exceeded the number authorized. At that point, anyone either from the floor or on the stage could have stood up and motioned for the precincts to recheck those sitting with them with their list of those who had registered. Nobody did.
Furthermore, the rules provide for a roll-call procedure. People who have such pressing business that they can't take the time to do this right should not be delegates or committee chairpeople. The credentialling, the nomination of candidates, the vote, and the roll-call are the most important business of that day. Those who pressured the chair to suspend the roll-call bear a great deal of responsibility for removing the keystone of the checks and balances system that protects the integrity of the vote. The roll-call is designed to publicly check the number of each precinct's votes with the number they were authorized and to provide an immediate opportunity to the body of the assembly to cause the chair of each precinct to dismiss unauthorized voters from their precinct so that only authorized voters are voting--and then pause for the authorized voters to revote, count, and report aloud the results.
To continue, the agenda for the assembly included the Delegation Poll, but some precinct chairs did not check the names of those voting on their Precinct Credentials Report with those actually sitting with them. Several precinct chairs (also known as committee people) obviously did not do this and thus allowed unauthorized voting in their precinct. There have even been reports that unregistered delegates arrived very, very late and unseated the registered alternate who was thus seated as an authorized and registered delegate.
Thus, there was a series of checkpoints intended to catch and check dishonest voting, but they all failed because nobody stood up.
- When a party's County Assembly is convened, those present are bound not just by the agenda, by local, state and national party bylaws and by Robert's Rules. Everyone present is also subject to the laws of the State of Colorado. In fact, the Colorado Revised Statutes include a number of laws that specifically govern party business and County Assembly. The large discrepancies in vote numbers clearly show that a number of people didn't register--but voted anyway. They did so in violation of state law and at minimum did so dishonestly.
- Any delegate who comes in too late to assembly to register also does not show up on the Credentials Report and, if that person votes anyway, that person is casting an unauthorized vote. At minimum, that person is voting dishonestly.
- Any precinct chair (committee person) who allows anyone who didn't register to vote allows them to vote or worse, to vote more than once, has allowed someone to vote dishonestly and has violated state law. All precincts were given a list of the names of their registered delegates, so such chairs cannot claim they didn't know.
- Anyone who was charged with any duty under the election code--including at the precinct and assembly levels--who violates, neglects or fails to perform their duty is guilty of corrupt conduct under 1-13-107. Period. The procedures of registering to be credentialed, of checking the precinct credentials list for unregistered delegates BEFORE they attempt to vote, of keeping the precinct ballots in the custody of the precinct chair, of roll calling the vote, the Credentials Committee announcing the number of authorized votes to catch unauthorized voting in the precincts, and so forth must be conducted and must be conducted correctly to protect us all against violating state law.
The central purpose of these procedures is to determine the true will of the assembly and to place on the ballot the names of candidates.
Colorado Revised Statutes 1-13-301. Fraud at precinct caucus, assembly or convention.
Any person in authority at any precinct caucus, assembly or convention who in any manner dishonestly, corruptly or fraudulently performs any act devolving on him by virtue of the position of trust which he fills or knowingly aids or abets any other person to do any fraudulent, dishonest or corrupt act or thing in reference to the carrying on of any precinct caucus, assembly or convention or the ascertaining or promulgating of its true will is guilty...1-13-303. Offenses at precinct caucus, assembly, or convention.
(1) It is unlawful for any person at any precinct caucus, assembly, or convention:1-13-107. Violation of duty.
(a) To fraudulently vote more than once; or
(b) To knowingly hand in two or more ballots deceitfully folded together; or
(c) To knowingly procure, aid, counsel, or advise another to vote or attempt to vote fraudulently or corruptly; or
(d) To falsely personate any elector and vote under his name or under an assumed name; or
(e) To fraudulently procure, aid, abet, or encourage, directly or indirectly, any person to attempt to falsely personate any elector or to vote under an assumed name; or
(f) To influence any voter in the casting of his vote by bribery, duress, or any other corrupt or fraudulent means; or
(g) To receive any money or valuable thing, or the promise of either, for casting his vote for or against any person or measure or to offer his vote for or against any person or measure in consideration of money or other valuable thing, or the promise of either.
(2) Each offense mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, the offender shall be punished as provided in section 1-13-111.
Any public officer, election official, or other person upon whom any duty is imposed by this code who violates, neglects, or fails to perform such duty or is guilty of corrupt conduct in the discharge of the same or any notary public or other officer authorized by law to administer oaths who administers any oath knowing it to be false or who knowingly makes a false certificate in regard to a matter connected with any election provided by law is guilty...
Yes, we are all guilty.
We should therefore resolve to do what we can to catch and correct errors, right wrongs and reject vengeance. We should seek out and learn our duties. We should encourage courtesy and respect for others' responsibilities and rights. We should seek out the company of those who can help us. We should stand up when something seems amiss. We should have the courage to insist on honesty and avoid dishonesty in our conduct--and in our companionship. We should know, accept and obey rules and laws rather than look for opportunities to save time and take shortcuts. Our nation's founders and their conduct of caucuses, assemblies and conventions--under the most trying of circumstances-- have set a high standard, but it is one that must be kept by all who profess to be Americans.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Latest Buzz About Denver Dan's Bogus Caucus
Depending on who is talking, the Denver Dan letters are either famed or infamous, but only a few people actually got them. Denver Dan thoughtfully included a "Supporter Reply Form" that included a request for a telephone call or email.
The Colorado West Slope Dispatch called the telephone number on Denver Dan's letter, but only connected with an unidentified answering machine. To date, nobody has reported receiving a call back from Denver Dan, probably because they haven't returned the "Supporter Reply Form."
Rather than discuss the letters second-hand, read them here to settle all doubt as to what they said.
Here is the one the elusive, reclusive, secretive Denver Dan Green sent just prior to the Mesa County Republican Assembly.
Broken News: Progressives May Not Have to Change Their Stripes to Fit Into the GOP, Just Their Clothes
Liberals in Red states may want to watch the market for electrochromic polymers, which mimics the color of its surroundings. Liberals who have infiltrated into the Republican party establishment, take note: According to a new study by British anthropologists just published in National Geographic, Red is the winning color.
Different Points of View About Free Will
Recently, a woman explained to a friend her reason for affiliating with the Democratic party. It was all about free will--the right to make a choice and then live with the consequences.
Nobody voiced the A-word, but the use of the word "choice" has become nearly synonymous with the infamous A-word.
Both active church-goers and Christians, these women held polar opposite views about political affiliation.
Or did they?
Nothing about the laws of Moses violated free will. People maintained their liberty to act as they wished, but some did in fact suffer the consequences.
Nothing about the Constitution or the laws of the United States violate free will. People maintain their liberty to act as they wish, and violators ocassionally suffer the consequences.
Nothing about the Roe v. Wade decision violates free will, with a number of exceptions. Only by relegating the unborn to non-person status can free will be said to be in full force amongst all involved. Of course, the other partner in the reproductive act may not be consulted or is in fact the person who pressures the woman into doing something she may in fact find represensible in exchange for his continued presence in her life. In no states does the constitutionally-required due process of law intervene in the process of the taking of life, because Roe v. Wade does not consider the offensive matter growing within the woman to be alive. Notably, one of the women claimed to believe in the right of a person to make a choice and then live with the consequences. Under that woman's system, in order for a woman to live with the consequences of her choice, someone else has to die.
Nothing about the other A-word violates free will, except in the case where defective state law does not consult the other party to the reproductive act to ensure that party has been personally informed and agrees. In most states, some semblance of the constitutionally-required due process of law controls the procedure so that neither parent is unilaterally deprived of their offspring.
One A-word dictates that only the woman has a choice, which usually is really a second choice following the choice to engage in the reproductive act. This A-word holds the woman's reactive choice to be supreme over all others. Roe v. Wade operates as though the offensive matter growing within a woman arose like a cancer tumor--spontaneously, at random and without any underlying cause under the woman's control. If conception in human beings came about spontaneously rather than by willing participation in the reproductive act, Roe v. Wade might be in order.
The other A-word recognizes that there are in fact at least three parties to the question and contemplates that one of these parties is unable to act or speak in self-defense. Additional parties may be involved, interested in protecting and receiving the unwanted, inconvenient life. Under Roe v. Wade life can be taken at will on the word of only one party without due process or defense testimony or the consent of the party at risk of death. The other A-word may be imperfect, but nobody is killed only on the word of someone who has the most to gain by their death.
In this country, we take great care to conserve our natural resources, with one notable exception--human beings. We have a federal law called the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which is a fancy way of saying that what one considers to be "waste" can be reclaimed and recovered by another, and therefore is no longer "waste."
Would that Americans were as diligent about conserving and recovering "throwaway" human beings as we are about recycling household trash.
In this country, we take great care to see that convicted murderers are not executed without a laborious appeal process, indisputable evidence, and trial.
Would that Americans were as merciful to the innocent unborn as to convicted criminals.
In this country, we face a demographic storm when there aren't enough of the working generation to support the elder generation's retirement.
Would that Americans realize the danger: we have become too accustomed to discarding anything that anyone finds inconvenient.
We still have the free will to demand at the ballot box and through our elected representation that this mindless destruction of our future security stop, and stop now.
American society is about to be obliterated. We as a nation may become extinct because we stubbornly refuse to reclaim "throwaway" human beings.
It is no accident that those viewpoints that are the first to hate America are the same gleefully sowing the seeds of our destruction through disposal of prospective Americans and replacement with hordes of people who illegally enter our country with no loyalty at all to America.
Forty million discarded Americans later, we may find that we no longer have the will to retain our freedom. As loyal Americans are replaced by those with no allegiance to our Constitution, our Constitution, we lose the protection of that which we were unwilling to defend.
Perhaps then will Americans finally understand the meaning of the phrase, "free will."
Nobody voiced the A-word, but the use of the word "choice" has become nearly synonymous with the infamous A-word.
Both active church-goers and Christians, these women held polar opposite views about political affiliation.
Or did they?
Nothing about the laws of Moses violated free will. People maintained their liberty to act as they wished, but some did in fact suffer the consequences.
Nothing about the Constitution or the laws of the United States violate free will. People maintain their liberty to act as they wish, and violators ocassionally suffer the consequences.
Nothing about the Roe v. Wade decision violates free will, with a number of exceptions. Only by relegating the unborn to non-person status can free will be said to be in full force amongst all involved. Of course, the other partner in the reproductive act may not be consulted or is in fact the person who pressures the woman into doing something she may in fact find represensible in exchange for his continued presence in her life. In no states does the constitutionally-required due process of law intervene in the process of the taking of life, because Roe v. Wade does not consider the offensive matter growing within the woman to be alive. Notably, one of the women claimed to believe in the right of a person to make a choice and then live with the consequences. Under that woman's system, in order for a woman to live with the consequences of her choice, someone else has to die.
Nothing about the other A-word violates free will, except in the case where defective state law does not consult the other party to the reproductive act to ensure that party has been personally informed and agrees. In most states, some semblance of the constitutionally-required due process of law controls the procedure so that neither parent is unilaterally deprived of their offspring.
One A-word dictates that only the woman has a choice, which usually is really a second choice following the choice to engage in the reproductive act. This A-word holds the woman's reactive choice to be supreme over all others. Roe v. Wade operates as though the offensive matter growing within a woman arose like a cancer tumor--spontaneously, at random and without any underlying cause under the woman's control. If conception in human beings came about spontaneously rather than by willing participation in the reproductive act, Roe v. Wade might be in order.
The other A-word recognizes that there are in fact at least three parties to the question and contemplates that one of these parties is unable to act or speak in self-defense. Additional parties may be involved, interested in protecting and receiving the unwanted, inconvenient life. Under Roe v. Wade life can be taken at will on the word of only one party without due process or defense testimony or the consent of the party at risk of death. The other A-word may be imperfect, but nobody is killed only on the word of someone who has the most to gain by their death.
In this country, we take great care to conserve our natural resources, with one notable exception--human beings. We have a federal law called the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which is a fancy way of saying that what one considers to be "waste" can be reclaimed and recovered by another, and therefore is no longer "waste."
Would that Americans were as diligent about conserving and recovering "throwaway" human beings as we are about recycling household trash.
In this country, we take great care to see that convicted murderers are not executed without a laborious appeal process, indisputable evidence, and trial.
Would that Americans were as merciful to the innocent unborn as to convicted criminals.
In this country, we face a demographic storm when there aren't enough of the working generation to support the elder generation's retirement.
Would that Americans realize the danger: we have become too accustomed to discarding anything that anyone finds inconvenient.
We still have the free will to demand at the ballot box and through our elected representation that this mindless destruction of our future security stop, and stop now.
American society is about to be obliterated. We as a nation may become extinct because we stubbornly refuse to reclaim "throwaway" human beings.
It is no accident that those viewpoints that are the first to hate America are the same gleefully sowing the seeds of our destruction through disposal of prospective Americans and replacement with hordes of people who illegally enter our country with no loyalty at all to America.
Forty million discarded Americans later, we may find that we no longer have the will to retain our freedom. As loyal Americans are replaced by those with no allegiance to our Constitution, our Constitution, we lose the protection of that which we were unwilling to defend.
Perhaps then will Americans finally understand the meaning of the phrase, "free will."
Monday, April 10, 2006
President Bush Sighting at Bear Rock Cafe in Grand Junction
Vice-President Dick Cheney has already been seen in Grand Junction before thousands of witnesses, but only a select few have been privileged to stand a few feet away from President Bush right here in River City.
President Bush, when not decompressing at his Prairie Chapel Ranch near Crawford, Texas has made Grand Junction's Bear Rock Cafe his second Western Whitehouse.
Recently, President Bush granted an exclusive interview to a local news outlet.
Residents of Crawford Texas and other Texans will participate in the Western Whitehouse Easter Egg Roll 2006.
President Bush, when not decompressing at his Prairie Chapel Ranch near Crawford, Texas has made Grand Junction's Bear Rock Cafe his second Western Whitehouse.
Recently, President Bush granted an exclusive interview to a local news outlet.
Residents of Crawford Texas and other Texans will participate in the Western Whitehouse Easter Egg Roll 2006.
A Promise Made and Kept
Yesterday's post included a promise to provide a subscription service. This morning marks the launch of the easiest subscription service I could find. Admittedly, this is the same thing as saying it's the only subscription service I could understand well enough to activate and use.
More or less, a person clicks on the big orange button, clicks on the "subscribe with NewsGator Online" link at the upper right, signs up for a FREE NewsGator account, checks the "remember me" button, then bookmarks their new account page so they can find it again to read updates at their convenience. No annoying updates to choke the email inbox or clog the Spam-catcher. It's clutter-free and cost-free, too.
Readers may simply click on the big orange button in the right sidebar to start the subscription process. Subscribing is far easier than figuring out how to make various services work together. It's amazing how much head-scratching, groaning, aimless clicking, and squinting is required to make an orange button appear on the screen so that people can click on it.
It will be interesting to review readers' comments, now that the comment feature works. Here are some examples of what might show up regarding the subscription feature:
"Only a middle-aged matron would think it's hard to add XML or RSS feed, a subscription hyperlink, and a feedburner chicklet to a blog."--A.B.
"@^%#%$&^%$^*!!!"--C.D.
"Hey, did you hear the latest scuttlebutt about ________? Call me at 555-1234 for the who, what, when and where..."--E.F.
"My neighbor's dog barks all night."--G.H.
"Hey, did you know that President Bush hangs out at the Bear Rock Cafe? Go in for lunch and ask for Brad Groll."--Colorado West Slope Dispatch.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Seen and Heard at the Mesa County Republican Assembly
Ann Duckett, former candidate for 21st Judicial District Attorney who lost to Pete Hautzinger, was spotted at the rear of the Grand Junction High School auditorium chatting with Rocky Mountain News correspondent Ellen Miller. Duckett is the ex-wife of a former Democratic lieutenant governor. Duckett is widely believed to have been behind the anonymous hit pieces targeting Hautzinger and other Republicans in the 2004 election. Curiously, she made this appearance at the Republican Assembly the day after the "Dan Green" letter calling for the party chairwoman's resignation. Duckett is the wife of local Republican Steve Fish. It is unclear at this writing whether Fish was participating in the assembly as a delegate. Ellen Miller reports news stories from Grand Junction and the Western Slope to the Rocky Mountain News.
Martha Romer, precinct committeewoman, told Cliff Knapp at some length and without apology that she supported Democrat Bernie Buescher for Colorado House District 55 over his Republican challenger in 2004. She did say she wouldn't vote for him again. However, she was outraged at a comment that those who keep rooting for the other team should consider joining it and should not be in GOP leadership positions.
Martha Romer, precinct committeewoman, told Cliff Knapp at some length and without apology that she supported Democrat Bernie Buescher for Colorado House District 55 over his Republican challenger in 2004. She did say she wouldn't vote for him again. However, she was outraged at a comment that those who keep rooting for the other team should consider joining it and should not be in GOP leadership positions.
Send Your Comments
Yesterday someone mentioned that he really enjoyed this blog and tried to add a comment but the blog wouldn't allow it. Unfortunately, the blog was set to allow only registered users to comment, which was evidently the default setting.
That irritating setting has been changed.
Now readers who love the blog and perhaps more importantly, those who hate it or think it's lame can share their thoughts with the other folks who read this.
One of these days the blog will include a feature to allow visitors to subscribe so fans and foes alike will be automatically notified when something new is posted. Meanwhile, readers who want to share an entry with others may use the envelope-shaped "email post" button at the bottom right of each entry.
Stay tuned...
That irritating setting has been changed.
Now readers who love the blog and perhaps more importantly, those who hate it or think it's lame can share their thoughts with the other folks who read this.
One of these days the blog will include a feature to allow visitors to subscribe so fans and foes alike will be automatically notified when something new is posted. Meanwhile, readers who want to share an entry with others may use the envelope-shaped "email post" button at the bottom right of each entry.
Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)