Delegate To The State Republican Convention

Woohoo! Say hello to the delegate from Northwest Denver.

Of course, having never been to one of these, it remains to be seen how worthwhile the whole thing will be, but seeing democracy in action can be amusing. Not sure if staying in Colorado Springs is on the agenda, but perhaps the lure of a hike to nearby Garden of the Gods or a visit to the Air Force Academy might provide added incentive.

ColoradoPols has some interesting thoughts on the state races, including current odds for all races.

Thoughts on the race? Leave a note in the comments. . .or vote in the poll located underneath the blogads–it’ll be up until the convention on May 20.

More Global Warming Fearmongering

A wrapup of stuff from last weekend’s “Earth Day” celebrations.

See why Laurie David is “terrified”–and why fear is a great motivator.

More “Global Warming” alarmism from the NYTimes.

And the “sin” and resultant “guilt” of driving an SUV:

To people who take the threat of global warming personally, driving a car that spews heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can be a guilt trip.

But to help atone for that environmental sin, some drivers are turning to groups on the Internet that offer pain-free ways to assuage their guilt while promoting clean energy.

It involves buying something known as a carbon offset: a relatively inexpensive way to stimulate the production of clean electricity. Just go to one of several carbon-offset Web sites, calculate the amount of carbon dioxide produced when you drive, fly or otherwise burn fossil fuels, and then buy an offset that pays for an equivalent amount of clean energy.

Of course, emissions could be reduced the old-fashioned way — by flying less, turning off the air-conditioning or buying a more fuel-efficient car. But that would probably require some sacrifice and perhaps even a change in lifestyle. Instead, carbon-offset programs allow individuals to skip the sacrifice and simply pay for the right to pollute.

“To some extent, it’s a way for people to buy their way into heaven,” said Chip Giller, who is president of Grist.org, an online environmental magazine. “On the other hand, this is such a big macro problem that this is one of the few things people can do to really make a difference.”

RIGHT! Even if the goal was admirable (reducing carbon emissions so as not to exacerbate “global warming”) the method is laughable. Like the indulgences that so enraged Martin Luther, this way of ameliorating one’s guilt by “buying” cleaner alternatives is laughable, and nothing more than a product of instant gratification and the kind of self-loathing that the left/environmentalists bank on for support.

Allowing Non-Citizens (Illegal Immigrants) To Vote

This from a college professor of political science, no doubt yet another liberal hack shilling for the Democratic Party, which no doubt would gain immensely if “non-citizens” were allowed to vote. Yes, that would include illegal immigrants and any other “undocumented” folks out there–the argument is provided here in all its tortuous, mind-numbing glory:

The growing immigrant rights movement has brought immigrants’ struggle for political power center stage. The way to give non-citizens more political power would be to give them the vote. But voting is only for citizens, right? Not really.

Although it’s not widely known, noncitizen voting is as old as the Republic itself and as American as apple pie and baseball. Noncitizens voted from 1776 until 1926 in forty states and federal territories in local, state and even federal elections. Noncitizens also held public office. In a country where “no taxation without representation” was a rallying cry for revolution, such a proposition was not far-fetched. It was common sense that government should rest on the consent of the governed. The idea that noncitizens should have the vote is older, was practiced longer, and is more consistent with democratic ideals than the idea that they should not.

Historically, voting and citizenship worked both ways. The right to vote has never been intrinsically tied to citizenship, which is why women and African Americans — who were citizens — were widely denied the vote until 1920 and 1965, respectively. Voting has always been about who has a say and who will have influence over the actions of government.

This historical precedent is making a comeback in some circles today. Currently, noncitizens vote in local elections in six towns in Maryland and in Chicago school elections. Over the past decade, noncitizen voting campaigns have been launched in at least a dozen jurisdictions from coast to coast, including Washington D.C., California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, North Carolina, Colorado, Texas, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Most recently, New York City Council members submitted a bill that would grant the right to vote to legal noncitizens in all local elections. This legislation is gaining significant support and is feeding another avenue of debate about the newcomers, the nature of citizenship, and the future of democracy in America.

Non-citizens work in every sector of the economy, own homes and businesses, attend colleges and send children to schools, pay billions in taxes each year and make countless social and cultural contributions. They’re subject to all the laws that govern citizens, serve in the military and die defending the United States.

Their numbers are staggering. Nationally, about 23 million adults are barred from voting because they lack U.S. citizenship. In some districts — and whole cities and towns — non-citizens make up 25 to 50 percent of all voting-age residents. Adult non-citizens in Los Angeles make up more than a third of the voting-age population; in New York City, they’re 22 percent of adults. In many places immigrant political exclusion approximates the level of disenfranchisement associated with women prior to 1920 and African Americans before the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Discriminatory public policy and private practices — in employment, housing, education, healthcare, welfare and criminal justice — are the inevitable by-products of immigrant political exclusion, not to mention racial profiling, xenophobic hate crimes and arbitrary detention and deportation. Non-citizens suffer social and economic inequities, in part because policy-makers can ignore their interests. Denying immigrants local voting rights makes government officials less accountable and undermines the legitimacy of public policies. Immigrant voting rights would help reverse inequities and make the American political system more democratic.

Most immigrants want to become U.S. citizens, but the naturalization process can take eight to ten years. That’s more than the cycle for two-term mayors, governors and state and local representatives. Moreover, not all immigrants are eligible to become U.S. citizens, unlike earlier times when nearly every immigrant could naturalize.

Advocates of noncitizen voting support opening up the naturalization process and creating new pathways to citizenship. Noncitizen voting would facilitate civic education and participation and better prepare incipient Americans for eventual citizenship. This burgeoning movement to create a truly universal suffrage calls forth America’s past and future as an immigrant nation.

The right to vote ensures that American democracy is inclusive and fair. Extending the right to vote to noncitizens would help keep government representative, responsive and accountable to all. It would not only restore a tried and true American practice but would also update our democracy for these global times. The immigrant rights movement is today’s civil rights movement and noncitizen voting is the suffrage movement of our time.

So allowing those who came to this country illegally–the vast majority of the “non-citizens” described here–would make democracy more “inclusive and fair”. How about keeping government accountable to those who are already citizens, by enforcing the laws, representing those that elected them, and responsive to the millions who voted, donated, and campaigned to put their sorry rear-ends in office? Illegal immigrants have no claim to civil rights privileges apart from fair treatment, which does not extend to voting rights. The concept of illegal immigrant suffrage is just another attempt to destroy the sovereignty of the state, and deny the current citizens of that state fair and equal treatment before the law.

The image of the “suffering” immigrant is hard to picture these days, as the current rallies for illegal immigrants across the country show little in the way of humble, hard-working and law abiding potential citizens, and rather a sea of demanding activists whose only allegiance, now or in the future, is to another country, either Mexico or the fictitious “Aztlan”. Not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico, and not all of those from Mexico are illegal immigrants, this is certain. On the other hand, that “non-citizens” who merely happen to be breaking the laws on immigration but are presented as net providers (paying taxes, doing jobs Americans won’t do) rather than net receivers, and thus are eligible–no, deserving of rights currently denied them by a vicious government and racist population–for voting rights simply boggles the mind. Portable democracy? Does a republic cease to exist when it is no longer only citizens who have a say? The left always envisioned the destruction of the nation-state as a way toward the people’s government. . .

Suspect Eminent Domain Bill Voted Down

It appears a “backdoor” amendment would have allowed municipalities to continue to use eminent domain to clear “blighted” properties, thus reducing the efficacy of the proposal:

DENVER — Lawmakers killed a plan Monday that would have asked voters to limit the government’s power to condemn private property, with the sponsor saying he hoped the issue would be put on the November ballot some other way.

Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, said an amendment would have allowed municipalities to continue using eminent domain to condemn property to eliminate blight. White said that would still allow local governments to seize property for economic development, which he and others consider an abuse.

White compared his bill to Old Yeller, the doomed dog of book and movie fame: “It’s been bitten by a rabid skunk and I’ve got to put it down. I can’t let this dog out of the courtyard and let it bite somebody else,” he told colleagues.

The House voted 60-4 to kill the bill by postponing it until a day after the Legislature adjourns. White said he now supports an initiative being prepared by citizen groups for the November ballot that would imposes strict limits on the power of eminent domain.

Denver An Early Frontrunner For Dem 2008 Convention

The 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver is closer to becoming a potential reality, or so Mike Littwin of the Rocky Mountain News says:

And Denver threw its party here at the spring meeting of the Democratic National Committee. It was held to try to convince delegates that Denver would be the perfect place to hold the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Denver did everything right. There was a great band. There was free food. There was free drink. There was a lot of free food. And a lot of free drink.

There were giant photos displayed right out of a Colorado travel brochure. Imagine a concert at Red Rocks, Mayor John Hickenlooper told a cheering crowd, which seemed quite enthusiastic. Of course, it might have been the champagne. It might have been the goodies bag. It might have been the door prize: two free United Airlines tickets, which presumably could be used to fly two people to a Denver convention.

Most people I talked to here have said Denver was a serious contender. Most put the city in the top three, although it was difficult to pin anyone down as to who the other two might be. Maybe Anaheim. Maybe Vegas.

Clearly, though, it’s the right time for Denver, which also made a pitch in 2000. “That was a total stretch,” said Chris Gates, who was here to make the Denver pitch. “We were telling people how convenient hotel rooms were in Wyoming.”

The Mountain West is obviously a potential growth area for Democrats, who apparently need some. If you take out your handy red-blue divide map, you see that Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada are all swing states that swung red last time. It’s the same argument Colorado used here to make a pitch to become a caucus state in what may be a new Democratic primary schedule – with another caucus after Iowa and before the New Hampshire primary.

The Democrats are looking for an early state with diversity and potential. And the convention could be looking for someplace with FasTracks and a big airport and a newly remodeled convention center and the Pepsi Center and diversity and potential and, well, nobody has to sell you. You already live in Colorado. And you know you can hold a convention these days and no one has to stay in Wyoming.

I talked to two Democratic committeemen from Massachusetts who said they were just talking about Denver’s chances. Everyone, said David O’Brien, “is high on Denver.”

BRING. IT. ON.

As said on this blog two months ago, “Oh, please, for the love of God. . .YES!“

1908 Democratic Convention in Denver=Republican elected (Taft)
2008 Democratic Convention in Denver=another Republican victory?!?!?!?
They say history repeats itself. . .

SHOCK: CU Tenure Procedures Imperfect

The full CU report released yesterday:

A much-anticipated independent study of tenure at the University of Colorado found dozens of areas that need fixing, from professors who got the lifetime job protection despite poor evaluations to post-tenure reviews that aren’t rigorous enough.

The report released Monday lists 39 recommendations for change – suggestions that Mark Heckler, a CU provost, said would equal “a fairly substantial rewrite of how we do business.”

CU’s tenure procedures, under intense scrutiny after the Ward Churchill debacle last year, are released just ahead of Churchill’s report due out in early May. Conspiracy theorists might suggest that the timing is less than coincidental, and that the overall findings, though imperfect, can be spun as nothing out of the ordinary. Certainly more fuel for Churchill and his mouthpiece, David Lane.

Calls For English Only Government Documents In Colorado

A Colorado Republican representative wants government documents to be printed only in English:

DENVER – A state representative wants all government documents in Colorado to be printed in English.

The State House Committee is discussing the proposal Tuesday.

Republican Representative Dave Schultheis of Colorado Springs, wants all official state documents to be in English. “I believe that’s necessary, there is a tendency right now in our society to start to use two, three different kinds of languages,” says Schultheis.

He says his English-only proposal will unite with a common language.

“So we can actually encourage people to learn the English language, I think for the most part, most us would tend to opt out to what our native language is, just because it’s easier, but in the end, that does not help that citizen to be productive in our society,” Schultheis says.

Of course, a democratic opponent could not hesitate to raise the “race” card, and impugn those who support English as “racist”:

“Is it the old message of the KKK, supremacist,” says Democratic Representative Val Vigil of Thornton, “a pure nation. Is that what we’re all about? Where we’re headed, that’s not what America is all about.”

“The whole issue of it is, there are some consequences we need to look at,” says Vigil, “what happens when the communication, when it doesn’t happen, when an emergency happens, when somebody dies, who’s going be liable for it? There are humane issues that we deal with in here.”

The measure has a long way to go. It will have to be approved by the majority in committee Tuesday, then two thirds of the House and the Senate will have to approve it before it can go on the ballot for voters to decide on in November.

Apparently Vigil believes that speaking multiple languages encourages and improves communication–oh wait, we’re all supposed to learn Spanish! Nevermind.

St. George–Offensive To Muslims

From the BBC:

Chris Doyle, of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, says the red cross is an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.

He said: “It is offensive to Arabs and muslims, including many from non-Arab countries.

“They see the Crusades as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.

“Because of what has happened in the 20th Century, when most of the Arab world was colonised, the memory of the Crusades has resurfaced.”

Nothing To Fear But The Climate Change Alarmists

More brilliance from Mark Steyn:

Do you worry? You look like you do. Worrying is the way the responsible citizen of an advanced society demonstrates his virtue: He feels good by feeling bad.

But what to worry about? Iranian nukes? Nah, that’s just some racket cooked up by the Christian fundamentalist Bush and his Zionist buddies to give Halliburton a pretext to take over the Persian carpet industry. Worrying about nukes is so ’80s. “They make me want to throw up. . . . They make me feel sick to my stomach,” wrote the British novelist Martin Amis, who couldn’t stop thinking about them 20 years ago. In the intro to a collection of short stories, he worried about the Big One and outlined his own plan for coping with a nuclear winter wonderland:

“Suppose I survive,” he fretted. “Suppose my eyes aren’t pouring down my face, suppose I am untouched by the hurricane of secondary missiles that all mortar, metal and glass has abruptly become: Suppose all this. I shall be obliged (and it’s the last thing I feel like doing) to retrace that long mile home, through the firestorm, the remains of the thousands-miles-an-hour winds, the warped atoms, the groveling dead. Then — God willing, if I still have the strength, and, of course, if they are still alive — I must find my wife and children and I must kill them.”

But the Big One never fell. And instead of killing his wife Martin Amis had to make do with divorcing her. Back then it was just crazies like Reagan and Thatcher who had nukes, so you can understand why everyone was terrified. But now Kim Jong-Il and the ayatollahs have them, so we’re all sophisticated and relaxed about it, like the French hearing that their president’s acquired a couple more mistresses. Martin Amis hasn’t thrown up a word about the subject in years. To the best of my knowledge, he has no plans to kill the present Mrs. Amis.

So what should we worry about? How about — stop me if you’ve heard this one before — “climate change”? That’s the subject of Al Gore’s new movie, ”An Inconvenient Truth.” Like the trailer says: “If you love your planet — if you love your children — you have to see this movie.” Even if you were planning to kill your children because you don’t want them to live in a nuclear wasteland, see this movie. The mullahs won’t get a chance to nuke us because, thanks to rising sea levels, Tehran will be under water. The editor of the New Yorker, David Remnick, says the Earth will “likely be an uninhabitable planet.” The archbishop of Canterbury, in a desperate attempt to cut the Anglican Communion a slice of the Gaia-worship self-flagellation action, demands government “coercion” on everything from reduced speed limits to ending cheap air travel “if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions of people to die.”

Priceless

(via Atlas Shrugs):

American flag: $25
Gasoline $2
Cigarette Lighter $2.50
Catching yourself on fire because you’re a terrorist asshole: PRICELESS.