February 11, 2015
Colorado juvenile detention worker cited for sex contact on inmate
By Arthur Kane As originally published on Watchdog.org
A staffer working at a Colorado Department of Human Services juvenile detention facility was cited for unlawful sexual contact after grabbing the crotch of a female inmate and other staff did not immediately respond to the girl’s calls for help, according to a police report obtained Thursday.
The girl told police she was only able to report the incident when she was let out by the suspect to go to the bathroom and that she had to follow him to the bathroom to get access to other staff, according to the report obtained by Watchdog.org.
Jordan Alan Virgin, 25, was working with the juvenile inmate at about 8:40 p.m. on Sept. 19 when he grabbed her crotch with his right hand and squeezed, the report described.
“At that point, (the alleged victim) jumped backwards … entered her room, shut the door and immediately asked for a” shift supervisor, the report said.
The girl told police she was repeatedly pressing the call button in her room, but no one responded. She finally convinced Virgin to let her out of the room to go to the bathroom and she went to the control room to report the alleged assault, the report said.
The control officer directed her to go back to her room and she told the officer: “I don’t want to go back to that unit with him because he just grabbed my crotch,” the report quoted the girl.
Virgin, according to the girl’s description in police records, had told her, “Come on, (redacted) don’t do this” when he realized she was going to report the incident.
Another staff member led the girl to her room and she stayed there until Virgin finished his shift and left the facility, the report said.
Virgin was cited with one count of misdemeanor unlawful sexual conduct, according to Jefferson County Sheriff’s spokesman Mark Techmeyer.
Colorado’s juvenile detention system has been the focus of lawmaker attention after a series of violent incidents and staff attacks highlighted in Watchdog.org stories.
A CDHS spokeswoman Dee Martinez said Virgin was not a state employee but worked for a contractor who ran the facility for the state, and Virgin did not have a listed phone number.
Virgin had no previous criminal history in Colorado, according to a check of Colorado Bureau of Investigation records.
February 10, 2015
The Obama administration fears the kind of plain speaking that Netanyahu will deliver to Congress
As originally published by TribLive
When Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, one might have thought that America’s politicians could benefit from participating in a serious discussion about a menacing global threat from the leader of a gravely endangered U.S. ally.
Instead, controversy erupted over the propriety of the speaker’s invitation, the etiquette of when he or Israel’s Washington embassy should have informed the State Department, whether President Obama would receive Netanyahu at the White House and, most frivolously of all, whether Boehner’s invitation violated the Constitution. Rather than discussing potentially mortal risks for the United States, Israel, our Arab friends and, indeed, the whole world, we witnessed a cat fight, instigated embarrassingly by America’s president, over whether everyone was using the right fork.
In short, this “debate” has been the very embodiment of placing process and style over substance in the making of foreign policy. And like all such distracting exercises, it is at best a waste of breath. Ask the ayatollahs in Tehran, who surely find this misallocation of American time, attention and resources to be totally amusing.
Unfortunately for the United States and all other countries concerned with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the consequences of White House petulance are far more serious. The very pettiness of the dispute, moreover, actually underscores that Obama is unwilling to debate the underlying merits of his policies.
There was controversy in Israel, from a strictly domestic political perspective, whether Netanyahu should be speaking to Congress so close to the March 17 Knesset elections. Not surprisingly, Netanyahu asked that his address to Congress coincide with the annual Washington convention of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, an event every Israeli political leader wants to attend.
Whether Israelis criticizing Netanyahu were jealous of his scoring a “twofer” in America, whether he violated some unwritten protocol or whether his speech might actually backfire politically, Israeli voters will sort out on March 17.
Instead, I am concerned here with whether Boehner did anything improper or unwise from a U.S. perspective. And the answer clearly is “no.”
For Americans, debating substance must replace critiquing style. America (together with the other four Security Council permanent members and Germany) is negotiating over Tehran’s nuclear-weapons program in a fashion almost certain to produce a tragically flawed agreement that will leave Iran with the upper hand and the world in peril.
The stakes are as high as they come. But Obama cannot be candid about the terms of the ongoing discussions, especially now. The inevitable consequences of his dangerous position already are provoking widespread bipartisan disapproval in America.
The White House most fears the effect Netanyahu will have on congressional consideration of further Iran sanctions if no deal is reached. Obama is worried with good reason. Although Iran and the West have been negotiating since 2003, only Obama has made the massive concessions to Tehran that have brought a deal close at hand. And it is not just what Netanyahu will say in Washington but also his timing that set off Obama and his acolytes.
In fact, Netanyahu previously addressed a joint session of Congress on May 24, 2011, demonstrating, among other things, his gaping differences with Obama regarding Israel’s ultimate borders, under negotiation with the Palestinians. The New York Times reported that “Mr. Netanyahu received so many standing ovations that at times it appeared that the lawmakers were listening to his speech standing up.” Even worse, from Obama’s perspective, The Times said Netanyahu’s “speech had many of the trappings of a presidential State of the Union address.”
Ironically, Obama touched off the current controversy when he persuaded or allowed British Prime Minister David Cameron to lobby members of Congress against the pending Iran sanctions proposals. At a joint Obama-Cameron news conference in Washington, the British leader answered forthrightly that he had spoken with senators and would likely speak to more, to convey “the opinion of the United Kingdom” that sanctions legislation would impair the ongoing negotiations.
Although publicly admitting Cameron’s lobbying efforts was highly unusual, they were hardly shocking in a day when foreign countries hire Washington lobbying firms to influence Congress, the executive branch and even U.S. public opinion. And even less shockingly, we do the same to foreign governments.
What likely irritated Obama more was that Netanyahu’s star power will almost certainly eclipse Cameron’s and that the arguments in favor of sanctions legislation are more persuasive than the Obama-Cameron view has been thus far. Moreover, British parliamentary elections are set for May 7, so Cameron’s timing obviously does not differ in principle from Netanyahu’s.
In short, Boehner outgunned and outmaneuvered Obama politically, a presumptuousness that could not go unchallenged from the heights of Mount Obama. In America, plain speaking remains a virtue. That’s what Netanyahu will bring to Congress — and what Obama fears.
John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations and, previously, the undersecretary of State for arms control and international security.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 2/10/15
February 6, 2015
The Colorado Kill Blog is the good news of the Limited Government Gospel. Here, we chronicle, with gratuitous glee, the deaths of bad bills.
Colorado State Senator Ray Scott once said, “Every bill is a bad bill.” This statement was made about legislation as it pertains to the prescribed role of government in the lives of American citizens. And, in a sense, every bill IS bad because, unless it is a bill repealing a bad law, it is somehow growing government while simultaneously contracting individual liberty.
The Colorado Kill Blog is the good news of the Limited Government Gospel. Here, we chronicle, with gratuitous glee, the deaths of bad bills.
First Regular Session of the Colorado General Assembly 2015:
The members of the Senate State Veterans and Military Affairs Committee are: Ray Scott (R) Mesa (Chariman), Jerry Sonnenberg, (Vice-Chair) Owen Hill (R) Colorado Springs, Matt Jones (D) Louisville, Jessie Ulibarri (D) Westminster
These are the bills that have, thus far, died merciful deaths in that committee.
SB15-088 Sponsor Steadman (D) of Denver
This bill would allow the Colorado “Independent Ethics Commission” to hire lawyers, at taxpayer expense, to represent its members in legal cases. The bill would also give the Ethics Commission free reign in creating its own rules.
The Ethics Commission in question has been a matter of controversy, to say the least, given their record which shows unbridled bias towards Democrat politicos, and a punitive attitude towards Republicans.
SB15-088 died on a 3-2 party line vote.
SB15-094 Sponsored by Kefalas (D) Fort Collins
This bill would have changed the designation of adjunct community college professors from part-time, flexible positions, to that of fully recognized faculty. The bill would force community colleges to scale pay for part-time adjunct faculty to be the same as full-time faculty, offering the same benefits. Rules of seniority and tenure would have to be applied as well. SB15-094 would have placed crushing burdens on Colorado’s community colleges which are now able to function because of the flexibility that adjunct professorships offer, and would have opened the door to unionization of adjunct teachers as well.
SB14-094 died on a 3-2 party line vote.
$97,100,000 in new state spending saved
SB-036 Sponsored by Donovan (D) Vail
Crafted by a wealthy Senator from Vail, this bill would create a “rural economic emergency assistance grant program” targeted at Western Slope rural counties. Purportedly devised to address economic “emergencies” such as layoffs, plant closures, and other “significant economic events,” this bill sought to aid counties hard hit by the closing of coal mines, timber mills and oil and gas operations—largely due to over-regulation by state and federal agencies–with a Band-Aid dressing on a gaping wound. The bill, little more than a feel-good measure, would disburse a little less than $2,000,000 over 40 counties, resulting in grants of around $50,000 per county. This bill falls laughably short of both naming the cause and treating the symptoms of economic problems in Western Colorado counties.
SB-036 died on a 3-2 party line vote.
$149,153 in new State spending saved
SB15-016 Sponsored by Steadman (D) Denver
The convoluted title of this bill reads, “Concerning marriages by individuals who are parties to a civil union, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting marriages in circumstances in which one of the parties is already in a civil union with another individual, addressing the legal effect of parties to a civil union marrying each other, clarifying the dissolution process when parties to a civil union marry, and amending the bigamy statute to include parties to a civil union.” In short, this bill was written to ensure that same-sex couples who created civil union contracts, then subsequently were “married” do not have to get divorced twice—once from the civil union, and once from the marriage—pay double the alimony upon divorce, or double-up on any other of the unpleasant tasks that come when legal, contractual relationships are dissolved. The Senate State Affairs committee postponed the bill indefinitely awaiting a determination from the Supreme Court of the United States, as to whether or not states can define what comprises a legal marriage contract. In 2006 the citizens of Colorado adopted a ballot measure defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
SB15-016 died on a 3-2 party line vote.
SB15-033 Sponsored by Kerr (D) Lakewood
This bill would increase funding for statewide preschool through twelfth grade public education, specifically, mandating full-day Kindergarten in all school districts throughout Colorado. TABOR, Colorado’s Tax-payer Bill of Rights, was passed by citizen ballot initiative in 1992 and requires that surplus revenues be “returned” directly to the taxpayers. The “full-day Kindergarten” bill would direct surpluses into education through a mandate. The caveat in SB15-033 is that it would allow the Secretary of State to “submit a ballot question to authorize the state to retain and spend for preschool through twelfth grade public education any state revenues above the excess state revenues cap approved by the voters in 2005.” In so many words, it would undo TABOR via a reverse ballot initiative.
SB15-033 died on a 3-2 party line vote
$34,423,500 in new state funding saved
Total saved in the first wave of killed bills: $131,672,653.00
by Marjorie Haun 2/6/15
As originally published in Boston Herald
Peter Brookes: There’s method to ISIS madness: Brutal videos could be ticket to top of terror groups
By: Peter Brookes
Some seem baffled and or shocked by the raw ruthlessness of the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL and Daesh) most recently foisted upon us by the video of the immolation — a euphemism for being burned alive — of a captive Jordanian pilot.
But, while hard to believe, there’s actually a method to this madness.
• Fear: While it tries to portray itself as a caliphate (a Muslim state under sharia law), the Islamic State is first and foremost a terrorist group. As such, it seeks to “terrorize,” causing intense feelings of fear in its target audience.
Through its acts of violence — the more heinous the better — ISIS hopes to garner the power and influence to get governments to change policies and to subjugate those it wants to hold dominion over.
• Footing: These horrible crimes against humanity (e.g., beheading, crucifixion and burying alive) actually allow the Islamic “State” to portray itself as a legitimate political entity — which it isn’t.
Indeed, these evil acts have permitted ISIS to make demands of real nation-states such as Japan and Jordan — even the United States — when it has tried to extort concessions from them over the fate of their nationals.
• Fame: The Islamic State is also looking for notoriety in its “show of horrors” public relations campaign; because of the widespread availability of social media, its message goes global virtually instantly.
This allows it to compete for resources with other violent Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda In the Arabian Peninsula, al Shabab, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and others of that evil ilk.
• Foot soldiers/followers: And speaking of resources, the Islamic State is involved in a war — and if it’s going to prevail in taking and holding territory, it’s going to need a continuing supply of militants.
While numbers vary, ISIS’ “army” may run some 30,000, including a mix of Iraqi, Syrian and foreign fighters. Some reports say that they may have lost several thousand so far.
While hard to fathom any level of appeal to anyone, these execution videos are meant to serve as a recruiting tool for drawing the next wave of foreign fighters to ISIS’ cruel cause.
These killings are also meant to conscript terrorist wannabes who already reside in countries in their cross hairs, especially in the West — witness recent attacks in places such as Ottawa and Paris.
• Funding: Lastly, while a terrorist attack, such as that involving an explosive vest, can be cheap, running a terrorist army that is hell-bent on conquest of territory isn’t. The trappings of war can be pricey — weapons, ammo and so on.
While the Islamic State has sources of income, including selling oil on the black market, it’s looking for money from beyond the battlefield from donors who may be motivated by these terrorist acts.
What all of this tells us is that this brand of butchery brings “benefits” to these bad actors — meaning that the unspeakable brutality will continue unless the Islamic State is done away with — and soon.
Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. Follow him on Twitter: @Brookes_Peter.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 2/7/15
February 6, 2015
James Earl Carter showed the country how to take a walk to Hell on a path paved with good intentions.
He was the figure that defined presidential weakness, misguided intentions, and inept foreign policy. Jimmy Carter was a hard-left Liberal in most aspects of his governance and American suffered for it. The 60s and 70s were a time not just of economic, social, and international crises, America was suffering with an identity crisis as well. “Who are we? Are we a people who love liberty and the accountability that comes with it, or are we a libertine people, possessing and exercising all personal freedoms without remembering the consequences of unrestrained liberality?”
The social changes during those mid-century decades came somewhat from our prosperity as a nation. But with prosperity often comes carnal comfort, a focus upon those things earned by the work of our own hands, forgetting that the prosperity itself and the hands with which we work it are granted by a generous Heavenly Father. Prosperity is often grows pridefulness and rebellion against God and His commandments. Personal and national pridefulness will usually lead to periods of social confusion, moral decadence, and economic imprudence. These dynamics will bring personal, civil, domestic and economic harm and ruination to a society. As people suffer the privations that come as a result of moral downturn, sometimes they will remember their God, the duties they have to be good citizens, parents, spouses, employees and patriots. They will go through a period of humbling and of turning their faces away from the institutions and doctrines designed by man, back to their God, His institutions, and His Divine providence, thus pulling away from the activities and attitudes that have caused the deterioration. Once a nation begins to correct the personal and public behaviors which have resulted in decline, God’s blessings will again support that nation, its citizens, its aspirations to true liberty and the works of the hands of its people. This is a cycle of prosperity and pride, followed by chastisement and humbling, followed by repentance and the remembrance of God, followed again by prosperity and pride. And history, in all its forms, has traced the rise, decline, and rebirth of nations for millenia.
Jimmy Carter was the hapless man thrust into the oval office during a time of pride and decline. But he exacerbated the problems of the 1970s by enlarging the size of government, increasing regulations on business and individuals, and attempting to make Americans dependent upon the government to solve their problems and meet their needs. The number of abortions which took place since Row vs. Wade spiked in 1980. Americans, during the “me” generation of the 1970s saw dwindling religious activity accompanied by burgeoning social problems caused by divorce, drug abuse, corporate and governmental dishonesty, and general depravity (also known as sin).
Ronald Reagan reignited the flame of faith in many. He inspired people through his passionate patriotism and his unabashed faith in Almighty God. Ronald Reagan gave Americans permission to once again feel good about themselves, their nation, and its Christian roots. He reinforced for us the importance of responsibility in conjunction with liberty, and of our dependence upon God to sustain and fortify that liberty. Ronald Reagan loved people and desired that all the people of the world may have the freedoms that American’s had enjoyed, sometimes recklessly, for 200 years. He boldly proclaimed that any form of government that attempted to deprive people of their natural rights was “evil.” And Ronald Reagan happily proclaimed the goodness, grace and righteous power of America, the only nation built upon the idea of liberty and whose armies were not forces of conquest but of liberation.
History is repeating itself. Barak Obama is Jimmy Carter’s low-functioning little brother, in a political sense. We are hungry for another Ronald Reagan to challenge the hapless Juvenile-in-Chief. Note to GOP contenders: The man or woman among you who carries the authentic torch of Conservatism and performs in the patriotic tradition of Ronald Reagan, you will be the 2016 presidential candidate. And the American people, like Conservatives, will elect you to lead them to provide the encouragement and sunny optimism that for which our bewildered nation hungers.
Ronald Reagan’s legacy is recorded for us to enjoy, remember, and to access as a source of glad patriotism, and Godly conduct.
by Marjorie Haun 2/6/2015
February 4, 2015
Colorado chief judge requests tax money, but doesn’t want to discuss how she spends it
By Arthur Kane | Watchdog.org
Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Nancy Rice asked the Legislature last week for more tax money, but afterwards declined to discuss why the judiciary exempted itself from state open records laws, including how her department spends the hundreds of millions of tax dollars it currently receives.
“The decision has been made not to interview, not to give an interview, and I am not going to do so now, thank you,” said Rice, repeatedly walking away and ignoring questions on the department transparency policy as her colleagues tried to block Watchdog.org from asking questions.
State Rep. Tim Dore, an Elizabeth Republican who sits on the House Judiciary Committee that granted Rice’s request for more than $600,000 tax dollars for a new judge in the 12th judicial district, said the judicial department should be subject to state open records laws like all other government branches.
“There’s no reason to have different structures when it comes to transparency between different branches of government at the state,” said Dore, adding he hadn’t heard of the ruling that self-exempted the judiciary until Watchdog.org told him about it.
Watchdog.org has repeatedly requested interviews with top judicial officials about department records and transparency polices after the appellate court ruled in 2012 that the judiciary, which spends a quarter of a billion in taxpayer money each year, isn’t subject to state open records laws. Department spokesmen denied interviews with judicial administrator Gerald Marroney, and Marroney refused to answer questions after a public meeting last year.
So Watchdog.org traveled to Boulder where Rice teaches a University of Colorado law school class and asked her why she declined an interview on judicial records and transparency policies.
“That’s not right,” she said on Jan. 13 about declining an interview. “You should talk to (judicial spokesman) Rob McCallum. I or someone more knowledgeable on the matter will talk to you.”
The following day, McCallum wrote to say Rice didn’t know who was questioning her and didn’t know the topic despite Watchdog.org explaining it to her, providing a business card and giving her the history of interactions with judicial officials over transparency questions.
“The Chief Justice did deny your interview request in November,” he wrote in an email response. “Yesterday afternoon when you approached her in the parking lot she did not know who you were or what request you were speaking about. She had no idea of the context in which you were speaking with her. I met with her this morning and reviewed your previous request. Your request has again been denied.”
So Watchdog.org decided to interview Rice after the committee hearing where she received more taxpayers’ money for her department.
“Hi Justice Rice, Art Kane again, so you said you were going to do an interview with me about this transparency issue and I…,” Watchdog.org asked the chief justice, who taxpayers paid nearly $148,000 last year.
“I think you misunderstood,” she interjected. “And I don’t believe I agreed to it and I believe now you communicated with my press person, Rob McCallum.”
“Who said you denied,” Watchdog.org said.
“And I am not going to have an interview with you,” she said.
“Okay, well I guess we’ll do it right now, right here,” Watchdog.org responded.
“No, the decision, the decision has been made, sir,” Rice said.
“Well, you’re a public official so I think I’m going ask you some questions anyway, madam,” Watchdog.org responded. “So why do you think the judicial department shouldn’t be required to submit things under state open records laws?”
Rice repeatedly walked away, talked to lawmakers and ignored questions.
The video of the full exchange is below.
After Thursday’s exchange, Watchdog.org submitted an open records request for a series of documents and records that any other state department would have to provide and is waiting for a response.
Rice will not be up before voters for a retention election until 2020
February 3, 2015
Hey, I’m a Mormon lady and I don’t drink un-powdered alcohol in any form or fashion. But as a fire-breathing, Free Market Capitalist, limited-government Reagan Republican, I don’t believe it’s the role of government to ban an innovative variation of a legal product because of what “might happen.” So, as submitted by Mark Phillips, the creator of “Palcohol” Powdered Alcohol, here is the straight skinny about this new product.
I’m Mark Phillips, the creator of Palcohol – powdered alcohol. I’m writing to express why it would be irresponsible for Colorado to banpowdered alcohol. The ban would be bad for several reasons:
1. Since the product isn’t even on the market yet, there is not one shred of evidence that it will be used or abused any differently than liquid alcohol. Every concern we’ve heard is inaccurate speculation and that is no basis to outlaw a product. The two federal agencies that have jurisdiction over alcohol, the FDA and the TTB, have reviewed Palcohol and tested it and found no problems with allowing it to be legal. Why does the state think it shouldn’t be approved when you have had no access to it and no first hand knowledge of the product? Don’t make decisions based on speculation.
2. Practically, we know from experience that Prohibition doesn’t work. Even more pertinent to Colorado, take marijuana. When marijuana was banned, did people stop acquiring it? No. Banning a product will create a black market which means the state loses control of the distribution. And with regards to powdered alcohol, then underage drinkers will have easier access to it. If you don’t want underage drinkers to get a hold of powdered alcohol, you need to allow it to be sold and regulate it just like liquid alcohol.
Alcohol is legal in your state and so why is alcohol in powder form any different? Learning from the marijuana issue, by banning powderedalcohol, the state will spend millions of dollars trying to enforce the ban and it’s unlikely it will deter the use. The smarter financial decision would be to allow it be sold and realize tax revenue for the state just as liquid alcohol provides.
3. Palcohol has so many positive uses in medicine, energy, the military, industry, recreation, etc. (detailed on our website, www.Palcohol.com). The role of the government is not to play nanny. There is a tremendous demand for powdered alcohol from individuals and businesses to use it responsibly and legally. No matter how well-intentioned, the legislature exists to protect our rights to live how we choose, not to use coercive power to force their values on us. Don’t deny the citizens and businesses the right to have access to this revolutionary new product.
These are the unfounded fears concerning Palcohol:
4. I understand there are concerns and I’d like to address those because they are totally unfounded.
a. People will snort it and get drunk.
Not true. It’s painful to snort due to the alcohol. Second, it’s impractical. It takes approximately 60 minutes to snort the equivalent of one shot of vodka. Why would anyone do that when they can do a shot of liquid vodka in two seconds?
b. Powdered alcohol will make it easier to sneak into venues.
Not true. A package of Palcohol is 4″ x 6″….almost five times bigger than a 50ml bottle of liquid alcohol so Palcohol is much harder to conceal. Alcohol in any format is subject to abuse if someone is determined to do so. Nothing prevents a criminal bent on violating the law from pouring liquid alcohol from its original package into a water bottle, a lunchbox thermos, a hip flask, etc. for surreptitious consumption.
c. It will be easier to spike a drink.
Not true. Palcohol does not dissolve instantly in liquid and would take over a minute of stirring to dissolve the equivalent of one shot ofalcohol into a drink. While adding a shot of liquid alcohol dissolves immediately.
d. Kids will get a hold of it easier.
Not true. Palcohol should be sold wherever liquid alcohol is sold and the same rules apply, you must be 21 years or older to buy it. However, if you ban it, underage drinkers will have much easier access to it.
To sum it up:
In summary, there is not one compelling, verified reason to ban powdered alcohol. In fact, banning it would be the most irresponsible action as it will:
1. Create a black market, straining the state’s resources to enforce the ban
2. Make it easier for underage users to get it
3. Deny the state substantial tax revenue
4. Deny the citizens and businesses access to a revolutionary new product that has so many positive benefits.
Because of those reasons, powdered alcohol should be legal, regulated and taxed just like liquid alcohol.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com 2/3/15
February 1, 2015
Tommy Twittletaub got stoned and lost all interest in Lucy Lumpkin’s lumps.
Young men–teenagers–have a bad reputation for being hump monkeys. Even the best among them are sex-obsessed fiends, and this rule has stood hard and fast throughout human history…until 2012, in Colorado.
Last summer much hooey was made when the Denver Post reported a statistical drop in Colorado teen birth rates. “Free contraceptives” were touted as the reason for decreased teen pregnancies. Naturally, the nanny state, “kids are gonna do it anyway” crowd went nuts with self-congratulation. However, there was no evidence that the free contraceptives, lacking accompanying handbooks, were used properly, or at all. The skeptic in me says that promiscuous teens, whose brains are years away from full development, didn’t bother to use their “free” contraceptives, and probably traded them for Pokemon cards. But there is something that makes contraceptives irrelevant to this issue; pot.
If there is one discovery, since the inception of human society, with the mojo to make teen boys–indeed, men of any age–indifferent to sex, it would be cannabis. There is a buttload of empirical evidence that pot, from the onset of use, turns male gonads into estrogen pumping dynamos.
In a CNN report titled, “Does Pot Cause Man Boobs,” studies correlating pot use with decreased levels of testosterone in human subjects were revealed. An article in Medical Daily makes similar claims. And, last but not least, the esteemed journal of Bongology, “High Times,” published an article titled “Weed Weiner: Smoking Pot May Cause E.D. (erectile dysfunction).” It’s obvious that pot not only turns young men into biological young women, but that it also inhibits the use of the very thing that makes a man a man.
So, there you have it. Colorado nanny staters can hoot all they want about how their wonderful policies, through which Granny Tooter’s money is confiscated in order to pay for little Lucy Lumpkin’s condoms, have decreased teen pregnancies in Colorado. But the Occam’s Razor* explanation is undeniable. When recreational pot was legalized in Colorado, and became a cheap and abundant commodity as a result, little Tommy Twittletaub got stoned and lost all interest in Lucy Lumpkin’s lumps.Colorado’s teen boys are getting stoned, and that’s why Colorado teen girls are not getting knocked up.
Next in the series: How early and prolonged pot usage turns you into a spineless, amoral ninny.
* Oc·cam’s razor
by Marjorie Haun 2/1/15
January 31, 2015
Bushman: Environmentalists and public lands
as originally published in The Spectrum
Environmental organizations have made a business of suing the Federal Government over its mismanagement of public lands. A simple Google search will reveal pages of litigation. However, a strange turn of events has unfolded in the last 12 months as the transfer of public lands movement has gained traction in the west. These same organizations that have continuously attacked federal management techniques, are the first to stand up and say the states cannot manage the public lands. One has to wonder, why the sudden about face? Over the years we have heard accusation after accusation presented by these “conservationist organizations” how bad the Federal Government manages public lands.
Shortly after the adoption of the Richfield BLM Land Use plan, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed suit against the BLM. Judge Kimball ultimately agreed with SUWA and sent the BLM back to the drawing board. Steve Bloch, Legal Director from SUWA stated “this landmark decision is a resounding rejection of the BLM’s mismanagement of Utah’s Stunning public lands.” David Garbett a SUWA staff attorney went on to say “Utah’s remarkable public lands deserve better than what they are getting from the BLM.” Nada Culver, Senior Counsel for the Wilderness Society stated, “This decision sends an irrefutable message to the BLM about the need for responsible management of the 11 million acres of public lands covered by all 6 challenged plans.” Yet, strangely enough, these organizations are the first to step forward and say the western states can’t manage the public lands – only the Federal Government can do this.
One has to wonder if there may not be ulterior motives. Why would organizations like SUWA be so dead set against moving these lands out of federal mismanagement and into the control of the respective states, when they make it very evident they are 100 percent against the way the Federal Government is managing these lands? I suggest a potential motive. It’s about money.
To this point I have referred to these groups as “conservation organizations,” however, I think it would be better to call them the “conservation industry”.
The “conservation industry” makes money by suing the Federal Government over its mismanagement of public lands. Properly managed lands are not in the best interests of the “conservation industry”.
The Equal Access to Justice Act authorizes the payment of attorney’s fees and costs for legal action against the United States. Taxpayer money is used to pay the “conservation industry” if they prevail on any technicality in their lawsuits against the Federal Government. Sadly, the “conservation industry” has lost its way. In an effort to protect the land, animals, and environment, they are functioning as massive lawsuit machines and you, the taxpayer, are paying the bill. If the lands in the west were transferred to the respective states, a significant funding source of the “conservation industry” would virtually dry up, as there is no state EAJA law where they can recover their legal fees.
So ask yourself again, “Why are organizations like SUWA suddenly fans of federal land management?” when they have accused them for decades of the worst kind of mismanagement. Did they suddenly discover that these federal agencies are good public land managers? I doubt this is the case. What they likely discovered is that filing lawsuits against state and local governments doesn’t line their pockets the way it does when they sue the Feds.
Darin Bushman is a Piute County Commissioner.
reposted by Reagangirl.com 1/31/15
January 30, 2015
How Obama’s Cuba Deal Hurts Cubans
Havana, Cuba (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
President Obama’s decision to make nice with Cuba’s repressive, anti-American regime creates a great number of losers.
Topping the list, of course, are the people of Cuba. They are starting from a bad place, lacking fundamental freedoms. And Obama negotiated no promises from the Castro brothers to ease up on the repression.
That leaves Cubans saddled with the second-most-repressive economy in the world, according to “The 2014 Index of Economic Freedom,” published by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.
It offers no relief from the Freedom House assessment of Cubans’ political rights and civil liberties — “Not free.” It leaves them mired in 170th place — out of 180 countries — in Reporters Without Borders’ rankings of press freedoms.
The claim that opening markets will transform Cuba is utterly bogus. The kleptocracy that runs the country will figure out how to exploit every dollar that flows in — just as it has managed to funnel every incoming cent of foreign money through the government sieve. Opening a new cash flow will only allow the regime to further enrich itself and dig in deeper.
Opening markets cannot magically transform totalitarian regimes into democracies — at least, not as long as the rulers maintain a stranglehold over civil society.
Look at China. The ruling elite has embraced many free market policies, yet freedom is waning on the Chinese mainland, and Beijing is now squeezing it out of Hong Kong, too.
Or consider Russia. It, too, embraced Western economic reforms after the Cold War. Yet President Vladimir Putin resurrected strongman rule and has turned his country into a Gulag Lite.
Does anyone seriously believe that tourists buying cigars in Havana will convince the Cuban cabal to change its ways?
Sure, some U.S. companies will turn a profit doing business in a country under the thumb of thugs. But they could just as well make that money elsewhere.
If the Obama administration were really interested in boosting American business, it would cut needlessly costly regulations, reform the tax code and green-light initiatives like the Keystone XL pipeline that can generate American jobs and reduce consumer prices here at home.
Instead, America loses under this decision. It strengthens an odious regime that aids our enemies. Cuba encourages and supports some of the most anti-American countries on Earth, from Venezuela and Iran to North Korea.
Just last year, authorities intercepted a ship bound from Havana and purportedly bearing a “humanitarian gift of sugar from Cuba to the North Korean people.” Hidden under the sugar were other gifts, including fighter jet parts, missile components, rocket-propelled weapons and ammunition.
America also loses because presidents are not supposed to take steps counter to the intent of current U.S. law without at least consulting Congress.
Not only did Obama not work with Congress on this matter, he waited until Congress had adjourned and left town before announcing he was going to “normalize” relations with Cuba.
Coming on the heels of his end-around action on immigration — extending executive amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants — the Cuban gambit destroys any chance of lawmakers working with the Oval Office in trust and confidence for the next two years.
Finally, America loses because Obama’s deal with the dictators betrays the very thing that has made ours a truly exceptional nation.
“Unlike other nations that derive their meaning and purpose from some unifying quality — an ethnic character, a common religion, a shared history, an ancestral land — America is a country dedicated to the universal ideas of equality and liberty,” writes constitutional scholar David Azerrad.
The premise of our existence is that only government of, by and for the people is truly legitimate. When Obama embraces the Cuban regime with a sham freedom agenda, he turns American exceptionalism into American hypocrisy. Freedom-loving Cubans deserve far better than that.
Originally distributed by Tribune News Service.
Reposted by Reagangirl.com on 1/30/15