1,000 contributions of $17.76
Or mail contributions to:
6547 N. Academy Blvd. #135
Colorado Springs, CO 80918
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing; they understood the concept of “inalienable Rights,” “Natural Law,” and individual sovereignty, and they understood that the latter could only be maintained with limited and accountable government. As your advocate, my objective is to return the power over your life, and make government accountable to you. We need quality, not quantity legislation, and that legislation needs to roll back the power of government and restore the liberty that has been quietly and continuously stolen from us.
Our Rights are not given to us by man, but are entitled to us by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God”, and the role of government is not to bestow these Rights, but to secure them.
We are “Entitled” (we have the legitimate claim) to individual sovereignty as the image bearers of a Sovereign God. Not as something earned, negotiated, or granted, but Entitled. The role of government is not to bestow these Rights, but to secure them.
I am Ken DeGraaf, and that is why I am running to be your representative for House-District-22.
|More About Me|
DoD and USAF endorsement not implied.
Independence, Liberty, Individual Sovereignty
Our Declaration of Independence remains the most revolutionary document in history by establishing our government as servant to its sovereign individual citizens. As specifically stated, the role of government is “to secure” our Creator endowed Rights, among which are “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Not to grant as privileges, but “to secure” them as bestowed by God, and to preserve them against the winds of adversity, not brush them aside in a crisis.
Liberty is not the way of world; it was only obtained by blood sacrifice, and it will only be maintained through eternal vigilance. The tension between the god-State and the God-image pulls ever downward; it is only by unifying as individuals that we have the strength to resist being pulled over the edge. This is why the god-State works to continually factionalize and fractionalize–to divide & conquer.
Individual sovereignty can only be maintained in an environment that allows and encourages individual responsibility. A government can only resist its tendency to usurp both by continual attention and exertion. Like a ball perched at the top of a slippery slope, if we are not diligent the ball will quickly roll down into the mud where it will remain mired. We must always remember that "Any government powerful enough to give the people all that they want is also powerful enough to take from the people all that they have.”
We have been conditioned to believe that being a Republican is merely about being “conservative,” which in our thinking might mean “holding on to good-old-fashioned-family values,” but to the Left it means “grasping to maintain the old power structures” for our own benefit. Ironically, it is the political Left looking to return to the “feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations...that bound man to his natural superiors,” while our Constitution is truly revolutionary in declaring the individual as sovereign to the State.
Sometimes, we equate “republican” as meaning merely “capitalist,” or “pro-business,” while allowing the Left to lay claim to being “pro-people,” even though the free-market is the most successful means of lifting people out of poverty, and dependence-inducing handouts of the Left steal dignity with a greasy smile.
Other times we latch on to “law and order,” as our identity, forgetting that the State tends towards abuse of any power given to it, and allow it to trample our Rights, while the Left promises to cast off all restraints and is met with expected destruction.
Yes, Republicans are “family values,” “pro-business,” and “law & order,” but beneath that, the foundation of our Republic and of Republicans is “individual sovereignty,” as contrasted to the totalitarian sovereignty of the State, of any brand.
“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” as endowed by “the Laws of Nature, and Nature’s God.” If we cede one, we cede them all. The unborn child is a separate being from his/her mother, and terminating that life is feticide. There are proven life-long physical and emotional damage to the mother of a terminated child that cannot be merely brushed aside for ideological convenience.
There are obvious hardships to carrying any pregnancy to term, but none of them amount to a capital crime by the unborn child. Also, allowing feticide to cover a crime such as rape precludes justice against the perpetrator, and the failure of the justice system to properly prosecute such crimes cannot be justification to commit another. Allowing abortion through birth, and denying life saving measures to an infant delivered alive, and permitting the use of their bodies in research for organ transplants will usher in a new low in human trafficking and organ harvesting not seen since the holocaust. Given the prevalent placement of feticide clinics in minority neighborhoods should demonstrate that Margaret Sanger's Eugenic dream lives on.
Democrats refuse to prosecute crimes committed with guns, while wanting to turn law-abiding gun-owners into criminals, and place them at the mercy of the actual criminals they released.
“Shall not be infringed” seems pretty clear; infringements must be excised from the law United States Bill of Rights, Amendment II, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Colorado Bill of Rights, ARTICLE II, Section 13. “Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”
Red Flag Laws: No! Violating Due Process is no excuse for violating the Second Amendment.
Amendment V “No person shall ...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
ARTICLE II, Section 25. “Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
My testimony for HB22-1033:
Constitutional Carry, 8 Feb 2022
This bill, presented by Ron Hanks, failed in a 5 to 8 vote. Susan Lontine(D), parroting Joe Biden stated “no right is absolute...I will be a 'no'”
Your Second Amendment Rights are the key to preserving all others, so if it is not absolute, none are. This seemingly innocuous quote should terrify you.
“Ma’dam Chair, I am Ken DeGraaf, a resident of ElPaso County and 27 year Air Force veteran. Because we’re condemned to either learn from history or relive it, I would like to speak from history. It is clear that our founders felt the right to keep and bear arms was essential for not only protecting our lives and property, but our Republic itself.
First, I’ll speak to the current web of laws:
As Alexis d’Tocqueville observed “After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the (government) then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
The current conglomeration of laws is reminiscent of Stalin’s head of Secret police who directed, “show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
From the United States Bill of Rights, Amendment II, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“Shall not be infringed” seems pretty clear, as unrestricted arms are the means by which we remain a “FREE STATE”.
The Colorado Bill of Rights, Article II, section 3 addresses personal protection:
“All persons have certain natural, ESSENTIAL, AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS among which may be reckoned the Right of enjoying and DEFENDING their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and PROTECTING property; and of seeking and obtaining their SAFETY and happiness.”
For the individual to Defend, Protect, and ensure the Safety of their person and property is considered ESSENTIAL, and INALIENABLE.
It is troubling that our current legislation is a de-facto declaration that what our constitutions’ declare as inalienable rights, are not viewed as such by our legislators who are ostensibly sworn to secure them. continuing:
Section 7 states: “the people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or seize any person or thing shall issue without describing the place to be searched, or the person or thing to be seized, as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing”
As a sovereign citizen of a sovereign state, there is no reason to be questioned by a Peace officer, charged with securing the Rights of all to intrude on my person or property without probable cause. Attested to by Section 13. “Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”
As Samual Adames explained, “the Constitution should be never construed to authorize congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the united states, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Why citizens need to be armed is perhaps best answered by George Mason in 1788 that “to disarm the people...was the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” whether that is by government or the criminal cartels as we see with our neighbors to the south.”
For additional thought:
James Madison wrote in Federalist 46 that “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition (of government) more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of” continuing to note that “the several kingdoms of Europe...are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
Samual Adames explained, “the Constitution should be never construed to authorize congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the united states, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed.”
Constitutionally, a mandate violates the “consent of the governed” and is therefore unjust.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” ― Galileo Galilei
Scientifically, there was no scientific basis for the mandates. The “absolute risk reduction” provided by the mRNA therapeutics NEVER exceeded 1% (per the Biologic Licencing Agreement), and fell rapidly. Political Science was the justification.
Masks create more problems than they purportedly address, and were especially damaging to children. Mr. Fauci knew and stated that masks were of no value but promoted them for political value.
Do I support mandates? “No.” They are unconstitutional, unwise, and unhealthy. In any future health crisis, the lack of transparency by the CDC, FDA, and pharmaceutical companies demands a high degree of mistrust for any future proclamations. Dr. Fauci should familiarize himself with the tale of “the Boy Who Cried “WOLF!”” The early data made the solution clear–those at risk should self-isolate, and effective preventative methods like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin be used broadly. By their own estimations, over 85% would never even have symptoms while their body dealt with this “novel” virus, just like your body deals with trillions of viruses every day.
If the mRNA therapeutic worked, it would only provide an immune response to <15% of the virus, which Pfizer knew would provide “fertile ground among the vaccinated majority” for “a viral variant capable of evading vaccine protection.” They knew this by May of 2021 before they encouraged the vaxx’d to cram into concerts and sporting events unmasked...right before the variant outbreak in August.
Besides the immediate problem of approving a gene therapy on merely 2.5 months of preliminary data, the CDC demonstrated the grave danger with agencies empowered to make de facto laws. Laws should only be made by duly elected legislators for whom there is no provision to pass such responsibility to executive agencies.
The lockdowns also demonstrate the danger of something as benign as licensing, as one government functionary acted on behalf of another government functionary to threaten the livelihoods of non-compliant businesses even beyond the two-weeks of perpetuity.
The deadliest part of this pandemic was the “experts.”
National Geographic estimates there are over 10^30 (30 zero’s) viruses on the planet.
That is about 10^21 per person, on top of the 40,000 trillion bacteria living in and on you.
If you’re going to live in fear, you should at least have it in proper perspective.
This will take a little math, so bear with me... Although Colorado must balance its budget, projected budgets grow 3 to 4.5% per year, which is an exponential growth pattern which cannot be matched by population growth. While a 3% gradient, would double a budget in about 33 years, a 3% growth will double it in about 24, and 4.5% will do so in 16. While the gradient will grow linearly, the 3% growth will double (ie, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16...) every 24years, and every 16 for 4.5% growth.
Population growth does not behave this way, as it will slow as it reaches some maximum, unless something is done like rezoning single-family residential properties into multi-family residential, which seems to be on everyones’ agenda under the auspices of creating “affordable” housing (generally not in the neighborhoods of the City Planners), although it seems ill-advised to recreate the mess of California to house those fleeing California. While the Free Market is equipped to handle these challenges, there is no problem the government cannot make worse with a “solution.” (it also violates Amendment V, “...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”)
For example, with a 3% growth rate, a program budget would increase by approximately 145% in 30 years. But, the 3.3million Colorado population of 1990 grew by only 78% to 5.9 million in 2020 (a 1.9% average growth rate).
From our constitution, ARTICLE IX, Section 17. “Education - Funding. ...as defined by the Public School Finance Act of 1994, article 54 of title 22, ...state funding for all categorical programs shall grow annually at least by the rate of inflation plus an additional one percentage point...“ But, the 1994 $3975 per pupil, adjusted for inflation to 2016 was approximately $6438. To become $9757 in 22 years equates to 1.8% annual growth. Normally, economies of scale would dictate a decreasing cost per student as population growth.
Medical providers should be allowed to accept direct payments at Medicare Rates. By paying about 1⁄5 of the billed amount, the effect is to force medical to charge 5 times the actual price in order to recoup actual costs. Those without Medicare are forced to purchase insurance, which will essentially negotiate a price closer to that allowed by Medicare, then charge a co-pay of 10-20%--essentially paying the actual cost of the procedure. Direct-pay patients more efficiently forgo the administrivia required to collect from MediCare and Insurance.
Since the Colorado Constitution precludes appropriating money to any entity “not under the absolute control of the state,” tax credits should be applied in support of a child’s education, which is not the same as providing “aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever.”
“Of Colorado’s $9,575 in per-student spending, $5,423 is for instruction..., of which $3,759 is for instructional salaries ... and $1,069 is for benefits...Colorado per-pupil spending also includes $149 for general administration ...and $695 for school administration.” That leaves $3309 per student per year, or approximately $5million in a school of 1500.
Assume: a teacher teaches for 4 hours, so 6hrs of classroom instruction requires 1.5 teachers students attend 6 hours per day, and the classroom has 20sf per student (500sf): 500sf at $300/sf is $150,000; Amortized over 20years is about $1000/mo 25 students at $9575 is $239,375/yr 1.5 teachers at $75k is $112,500/yr Classroom: $ 12,000/yr $114,875/yr per classroom
There are numerous other expenses involved in schooling, but I think we should have a serious look at where $114,875 per classroom per year is going, and if those can be achieved in a more cost-effective manner. A large chunk is going to the State Board of Education which, from SB21-067, seems to be more focused on indoctrination, and has grown well beyond its Constitutional charter.
ARTICLE V, Section 34. “Appropriations to private institutions forbidden. No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation or community not under the absolute control of the state, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution or association.”
ARTICLE IX, Section 1. Supervision of schools - board of education. (1) The general supervision of the public schools of the state shall be vested in a board of education whose powers and duties shall be as now or hereafter prescribed by law. Said board shall consist of a member from each congressional district of the state... (there are 7).
ARTICLE IX, Section 7. Aid to private schools, churches, sectarian purpose, forbidden. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian society, or for any sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatsoever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money or other personal property, ever be made by the state, or any such public corporation to any church, or for any sectarian purpose.
ARTICLE IX, Section 11. Compulsory education. The general assembly may require, by law, that every child of sufficient mental and physical ability, shall attend the public school during the period between the ages of six and eighteen years, for a time equivalent to three years, unless educated by other means.
ARTICLE IX, Section 16. Textbooks in public schools. Neither the general assembly nor the state board of education shall have power to prescribe textbooks to be used in the public schools.
The COVID lockdowns demonstrated the danger in giving this power to the State, and the willingness of one group of functionaries to impose de facto laws on citizens in support of other functionaries' de facto laws. Unless there can be provisions for assuring such usurpation of property Rights can not happen again, then the State has proven itself to be untrustworthy with the power of licensure.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ARTICLE II Section 10. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions for libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.
CU, CSU, Mines, etc, “are designated by law as state institutions”, thus fall under the “absolute control” of the State and therefore the constitution. There is no constitutional provision to establish restricted speech zones. This should be the case for any institution accepting government funding. Administrators restricting speech are in violation of the Constitution, and therefore their terms of employment.
Article II, Section 1. “Vestment of political power. All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”
We cannot live by the ideals of President Lincoln “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” if our elected representatives become a separatist class of elite governors. Term limits are the only way to make certain a return to legislation by statesmen who serve, then return to live under the law. Any one State could impose term limits on its own representatives, but that would place them at disadvantage among the legislators of other states.
I am afraid that while Article V convention of States is an appealing shortcut to that end, it should be approached cautiously since it stands to put the people who are the problem in charge of solving the problem. Instead, it might be a better idea for individual States to pass term limit legislation to go into effect when a plurality of states have done so as well. While the convention seems a great shortcut, we need to ensure full control of the genie before we release him from his bottle.
Not sure about this one yet... much of the problem we had in CO was that the emergency orders were done when the legislature was out of session. I don’t know if they tried to use the 2⁄3 to request an emergency session, but if it was mostly democrats, then I'm sure they were happy to just let Polis pole us.
ARTICLE VIII Section 3. (4a) describes a "Disaster emergency" as “the occurrence or imminent threat of widespread or severe damage, injury, illness, or loss of life or property resulting from an epidemic or a natural, man-made, or technological cause.” If such a disaster makes State government in Denver untenable, then “ after consulting with the chief justice of the supreme court, the president of the senate, and the speaker of the house of representatives, the governor may designate a temporary meeting location for the general assembly.” Then “the general assembly shall convene at the temporary meeting location, whether during regular session or in a special session convened by the governor or by written request by two-thirds of the members of each house.”
The Colorado Constitution does not indicate the Governor can legislate denial of constitutional Rights for any reason, yet the misuse of Executive Orders has done essentially that.
The Legislative session should be trimmed by two weeks, with those days being held in reserve for an emergency session, and remaining in-session until culmination of the emergency, with legislators working with their district medical and first responders.
Entrepreneurs and small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy and our communities. They are the backbone of “the middle class” so hated by the State because they are disparate, and more difficult to control. Big Government loves Big Business because a few at the top can be bribed or coerced into betraying the many in the trenches. While the lockdowns shuttered 600,000 businesses, the megaliths fed on their corpses and raked in record profits. We even see businesses Politicians will talk about adding more Trojan Horse Policies “that encourage job creation,” and “incentives for smart development,” but where government money and favors flow, “ABSOLUTE CONTROL” and meddling follows. Historically, there is no problem the government makes that it cannot make worse with a “solution.”
“Were we directed from Washington when to sow, & when to reap, we should soon want bread.”
“(Should we) commit to the governor and council the management of all our farms, our mills and merchants’ stores? No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.”
The Government doesn’t need to encourage small business, it needs to get out of the way.
I think our best way forward is what I call Free Marketism–”From each according to his motivation, to each according to his utility.” Even if well intended, legislation to encourage business ends up encouraging graft and corruption.
While being individually sovereign should absolve us of governmental intervention and tyranny, it does not absolve us of our responsibilities. Instead, it allows us to take care of our responsibilities without government interference.
Is it truly charity if it is done at gunpoint, and ultimately that is the nature of taxation. Before we think in terms of the things we’d like the government to handle, we should first consider whether those are things over which we would like the government to have “absolute control,” because that is the cost of legislatie appropriation.
Too long to copy here, "Not Yours to Give" (James J Bethune, 1867) is an excellent essay on governmental benevolence, and likely a previously unknown aspect of Colonel Davey Crocket.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it”
“Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast view beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service, when it is violating His Laws.”
“The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”
Dr. Thomas Sowell
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive ... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
Gerald R. Ford, 38th President
Individual Sovereignty: The Foundation of Our Republic
“(twelve-score & six) years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or a nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure...
We here [today should] highly resolve that (our) dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth.”
adapted Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, 19 Nov 1883
If we are to restore our nation, we need to return to the principles that made our nation great. Those principles are laid out for us in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
These are the values of our Republic; these are the ideas that established man as individually sovereign, as image bearers of a Sovereign God.
These are the ideas that inspired less than 3% of fledgling, backwater nation to take up arms against the most powerful empire in the world, in light of almost certain death. These ideas are the birthright we’ve traded for the pottage of convenience and security because our vigilance faltered.
These are the truths we must embrace and defend to rekindle the flame of liberty.
But, to understand our Unalienable Rights, we need to look back as to why they are “unalienable,” and we’ll find it embedded in the first paragraph–a precursor.
“The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” “the separate and equal station” – “independent,” and “equal,” as “entitled”--given to us like a title, like royalty–to us by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.”
St Thomas Aquinas considered there to be four different types of law–eternal, natural, human and divine. While Eternal Law means “God’s rational purpose and plan,” Natural Law means internal rules which are not imposed externally, and that we can deduce according to reason, and must be true for all people in all instances. Human Laws follow,“But, if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr cited Aquinas in his Letter from Birmingham City Jail, writing “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”
John Locke (1632-1704), considered by many to be “the Father of Liberalism”, held that “Natural Law” consisted of moral rules as founded on divine, universal and absolute laws, discernible through reason, and are obligatory, owing to their divine authorship.
More importantly for our Constitution, Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) defined “law” as “a rule of action dictated by some superior being”, and “the Law of Nature” as “the will of the Maker”--the unchanging laws of nature which God imposed on Creation. As such, any law violating the law of nature was not valid.
“Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”
Now we can better discuss those Rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Whether “natural law” or “the laws of nature,” all law originates with God. That something is “self-evident” means that it does not require proof, and the first of the self-evident truths is that “all men are created equal.”
Since we are all equal, none can be sovereign over another, and our sovereignty is subject only to that of our Creator. In turn, men created villages, villages formed counties, counties formed states, states formed countries, with each creator sovereign over the created.
It is no surprise that there is scriptural backing:
‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ John 15:20
“Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Romans 9:19
Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in His own image; ... and God said to them “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it;”
The second self-evident truth is “that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights,” which means certain rights were given or “bequeathed” to us from a higher agency–God—and they are unable to be given away by, or taken from the possessor. What’s often overlooked is that among created equals, if one has certain unalienable Rights, then all do, and therefore acting in a manner contrary is to deny those rights on your own behalf. The only way I can claim a right for myself is to not violate your Life, Liberty, (or)Pursuit of Happiness.”
A truly revolutionary self-evident truth is “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.” Note that it doesn’t say “all powers are derived from the consent of the governed”, just the “just” powers. In Colorado, primacy is given to the Constitution of the United States, from which Colorado and its constitution were written, and from that the laws. There are currently laws that are in violation of one or both constitutions, which means they were made unlawfully, and are unlawful. Preceding our declaration of independence and constitution, however, are “the Laws of Nature” from which they were derived, and so any laws in violation of “the Laws of Nature” are invalid perversions of the Law itself.
Does one animal enslave another?
Does “foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests” that they will defend? Are offspring created and cared for by a male/female parent group?
“Go to the ant and be wise” is economic theory 101
Now, what happens in atheist materialism when “The Fear of the Lord1 (as) the beginning of wisdom” is rejected? BTW,
Romans 1:24-25 “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
So, how does this go wrong? In rejecting the knowledge of God, there is no law and no law-giver & where there is no law giver, there is no relationship based on shared sovereignty, so our relationships are based on power alone, as recognized by marxist doctrine.
It really doesn’t matter if you believe in “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” to understand that this is idea is foundational to our founding and laws.
For these reasons, I prefer to reframe the scope of any political conversation into “individual sovereignty” vs “state sovereignty”
Often we have a difficulty because we’ve allowed “the Left” to classify everything “not Left”--not communist–as “Right” or “Far Right”. But, if you look at the systems through the lens of sovereignty, you’ll see that both communism and fascism are solidly in the camp of “state as sovereign” --they are the same (feces) sandwich with different condiments.
I hope that gives you a better understanding of the values of our Republic, and therefore what it means to be a Republican.
1 “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way, and the perverse mouth I hate.” Proverbs 8:13
2 (Prov 9:10, 1:7, 15:33, Ps 2:10-11)
3 While many applaud the seeming benevolence of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” they generally ignore that this only follows the abolition of private property and “the enslaving subordination (where) labor has become not only a means of life but lifes prime want...”
Whether Marxism works or does not might be judged in terms of his poetry “..Worlds I would destroy forever, Since I can create no world”, “Then I will be able to walk triumphantly, Like a god, through the ruins of their kingdom. Every word of mine is fire and action. My breast is equal to that of the Creator.” “I shall build my throne high overhead...it’s marshall–blackest agony”, “see this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me”, “with satan I have struck my deal / he chalks the signs, beats time for me / I play the death march fast and free.”
With that, I’d surmise that the Marxist god-State has succeeded 100% of the time, as it averages a murder rate of over one million every year.
I would like to address some questions I’ve been receiving about why election integrity matters so much and what type of machines we have in El Paso County.
Bottom Line: One day, In-person, hand-counted paper-ballot voting, with a valid ID, and dipping your thumb in indelible dye in place of the “I Voted” sticker. Absentee ballots as the exception, not the rule.
Politics is ultimately about money and power, and attracts those attracted to money and power, and access to that money & power is through the election process. Electronic voting opens up even the tiniest local election to a world of bad actors.
Election fraud is theft of your vote, it is theft of your voice, and it is theft of your Right to self-govern. Anyone who would engage in vote-theft does not have your best interests at heart. Whatever their justification, they are intending to do government TO you, not FOR you. We must restore election integrity while we still can.
What if Joe Biden really didn’t win the election and we still had energy independence? Would that change your life?
From the evidence I have seen, election by electron is still a bad idea. As a rule, if it can be hacked, it will be hacked, and all computers can be hacked. From my personal experience in being in charge of establishing and certifying a Top Secret vault, absolutely NO cell phones were allowed inside, ALL thumb drives and media were assumed contaminated, and the telephone with a secure-line could not be close to any computer terminal. If a cell phone was caught inside the vault, it was subject to the Hillary Clinton Protocol–a hammer. I’m told a true IT expert has no “smart” anything, a dot-matrix printer, and keeps a gun beside the toaster in case it acts up.
El Paso County machines are Dominion. The same type systems for which the Mesa County Clerk was arrested for revealing the vulnerabilities and preserving records–arrested to following the law. You can read Clerk Peter’s report here. I did have the opportunity to hear a brief presentation by Clerk Peters. She is a gold-star mom of a Navy Seal who was killed in combat. I find her arrest for revealing Dominion vulnerabilities disturbing. They set a $500,000 cash-only bail (a murder’s bail) to ensure she spent the night in jail. Her dad passed away that night. This is government done TO you, not FOR you.
“(Below) is the 2015 press release announcing the selection of Dominion for all counties in CO beginning with 2016 elections. Dominion machines are the only ones authorized in CO for all but the three counties that have made other choices for counting. The machines may not be labeled Dominion on the outside, but they are 100% Dominion owned (most are leased to counties), maintained, and updated under the direction of the SOS. Clerks are not even allowed to touch the machines or their systems.” - Peter Lupia
note: SB22-153 “Creates a felony for tampering with voting equipment; unauthorized access to or facilitating unauthorized access to voting equipment”--only Dominion can access the machines or their proprietary code. This bill puts elections under the central control of a single individual, and makes it a crime to question the legitimacy or validity of such an election. This bill is abhorrent to the survival of our Republic)
Visiting VerifiedVoting.org you can click on the 2022 election and the equipment to be used will be displayed. Be sure to hover over El Paso County to see the equipment manufacturer. After selecting El Paso County, there are even more details below.
This equipment list below from the Secretary of State also verifies Dominion.
I also found information on ExpressVote and some of its issues. I do not know if it is related at all to Dominion. The issues are endemic to all Electronic Election systems. Fortunately many of us signed up to be election judges, which should help towards conducting an election instead of a selection.
It is not lost on me that all of the webpages and all of the electronic documents could be forgeries, but ironically that bolsters the case against electronic voting.
|El Paso County Sheriff||Todd Watkins||ToddWatkinsForSheriff.com|
|El Paso County Clerk & Recorder||Peter Lupia||VotePeterLupia.com|
|County Commissioner-1||Lindsay Moore||MooreForElPaso.com|
|County Commissioner-5||Dave Winney||DavidWinney.com|
|Colorado Secretary of State||Tina Peters||TinaPetersForColorado.com|
|US Senate||Ron Hanks||HanksForColorado.com|
I need your support to replace Andres Pico as Representative of HD-22, because his 69/100 “D” shows he is not the champion we need to halt the advance of the State. His “bipartisanship” is not righting the ship of State. Instead, he is allowing it to list increasingly Leftward. The question is not just “Why?”, but “Why do we allow it?”
When “I do swear by the everliving God, that I will support the constitution of the United States, the constitution of the state of Colorado, and the laws of the state of Colorado, and will faithfully perform the duties of the office of (HD-22 Representative),” I will not measure my success in how much money I can extract from the treasury, but in how much treasure I can prevent from being extracted from Coloradans.
If I fail in this regard, I will expect to be replaced; for the sake of my posterity as well as yours.
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given Liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”Judge John Philpot Curran, 1790
Every year, our elected officials create hundreds of constraints on our liberty and drains on our pursuits, with each cent irrevocably extracted from our lives. The Liberty Scorecard, reveals our elected democrats as waging an unrelenting assault on individual sovereignty, and many of our elected Republicans are either complicit, compliant, or even cooperative to those ends.
As the beast consumes, the beast grows, as does its appetite, and “we the people” are the menu.
Our State constitution clearly delineates its purpose as being “to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Contrary to the adage, it is not the intention that counts, but the result. As Karl Marx observed in his dream to destroy humanity, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” We need statesmen to halt the progression, not serve as the road crew.
“The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.”Thomas Jefferson
Something that should terrify everyone. Article V, section 34 states, “no appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation or community not under the ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF THE STATE, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution or association” (emphasis mine). This is not slowly advancing intrusion, but an immediate takeover. To what extent is merely dependent on how those under the control of the State differ from its motives, and its motives should always be suspect.
Something else you should notice is how some bills are concluded as “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety”? The reason is because these bills don’t actually take effect for 90 days after adjournment of the general assembly, unless “a referendum petition is filed pursuant to section 1(3) of article V of the state constitution,” then it will not take effect “unless approved by the people at the general election.” But, by our Colorado Constitution, Article V, Section 1, paragraph 3, legislation passed “for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety” is exempt from the power of the referendum to overturn it by either signed petition of registered electors, or the general assembly. No supporting evidence is required for the assertion. In general, it appears to be a gross misuse, and a betrayal of trust to inappropriately use such language, or approve of its misuse.
As an example, we can look at HB21-1243 for "the establishment of funding for the program to introduce and manage gray wolves” appropriates millions of dollars from existing programs, which will likely be replenished with increased fees, unless their budgets previously included millions of dollars in largesse. Another troubling part is regarding reimbursing ranchers at a “fair” price, of the States determination. It wraps up by saying “the lack of an appropriation…shall not halt reintroduction of gray wolves,” because “this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety,” although they don’t delineate which, or how it’s any of those. More pavers.
HB21-1099 declares that domestic abuse is a problem, but is it essential to appropriate $22,500 from CDHS from the general fund, which may be used “for administration”? It seems this bill is merely to grab additional funding. Maybe it’s not a lot, and maybe it’s well intentioned, but “the state department shall promulgate rules based on recommendations …” is a very broad charter, with a racially charged caveat that “rules, or procedures that address the impact of domestic abuse … with the goal of ensuring that these communities are not disproportionately or unfairly impacted.” This means that legislation Constitutionally required to represent all citizens equally, first divides them by race, and by whatever else a “community” might be determined. There is a lot of “creating, implementing,” and “establishing,” but “oversight,” “review” or “constraining.” We have no idea what rules will emerge from such Pandora’s Boxes of legislation, but they will cost, and they are difficult to reign in once loose. It’s no wonder that the Liberty ScoreCard opposed it for violating the ideals of “Equal Protection, Rule of Law, and Limited Government”; the question is “why did Mr. Pico support it?”
What about HB1119? Who could be opposed to “Suicide Prevention, Intervention, and Postvention,” except it adds to the directives of three current entities dealing with suicide, “the development of mental and behavioral health AND suicide prevention…curricula”, and creates an entire new round of grant programs. Suicide should be prevented, but assuming this requires State-level guidance is preposterous, or benefits from its lack of expertise is unsubstantiated, and is a further intrusion into our lives by “the Nanny State,” which is just the god-State with make-up. There are no metrics for determining success, an actual determination of costs, nor a date or plan to phase out the program when it has accomplished its goals. Neither are there guidelines, nor an approval process for the curricula that will be imposed on us at all levels.
Continuing in that vein, HB1166 “Behavioral Health Crisis Response Team,” wastes more money and grows government. Having mastered Suicide prevention, and crisis response, our elected officials took their medical experience to cobble together HB-1171 to form a “Kidney Disease Task Force,” for about $100,000 per year, which seems far outside the lane of politicians, but still they deem the bill “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety” with a primary function of interacting with actual experts, to address a chronic condition with a report not due until 2023.
As to permanence, HB1225 “created in 2016,” “delays the repeal and sunset review…by 4 years…extends the board’s surcharge; extends the board’s annual reporting requirement…” It’s almost as if to prove Milton Freidman’s adage “nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program.” If the program did not accomplish what it promised to accomplish in the time promised, why would we expect doing the same thing again would yield different results? Yet, Mr. Pico approves of this insanity, and set more pavers.
Other bills of which you might question Mr. Pico’s support is HB21-1021 “Peer Support Professionals Behavioral Health.” First, I’d challenge you to read it and figure out what it actually sets out to accomplish, or how to determine if it was successful. Why does the pittance cost of $22,454 have hidden costs of $12,664? And why does the cost jump to $54,646 the next year? What will be the cost next year? But the real funding comes from the State Department seeking grants and donations, to go into a cash fund in the treasury to be used to fund even ”RECOVERY SERVICES…INCLUDING PEER-RUN ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO NOT SEEK TO BE RECOVERY SUPPORT SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS.” A cynical person might think this a shakedown and laundering scheme. Many pavers.
SB21-237 is to “Create Forest Health Council in Department of Natural Resources” by first “repealing the forest health advisory council (HB16-1255) within the state forest service and making an appropriation”--start the new at the sunset of the old. Perhaps because the metrics of the previous council “experienced its three largest wildfires in recorded history…over six hundred twenty-five thousand acres…costing at least two hundred eighty-five million dollars to suppress,” but there is no indication how changing the venue of the 26 members will alleviate the problem.
From the Financial summary: “The bill will increase General Fund expenditures in the Legislative Department by $727 in FY 2021-22 and $1,471 in FY 2022-23. It also increases workload and meeting-related expenses for the Department of Natural Resources. These costs are summarized in Table 2 and discussed below”.
HB21-1324 TO FACILITATE THE USE OF INNOVATIVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES BY INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITIES IN COLORADO” by which they mean “AN ELECTRIC GENERATION OR ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY THAT DEMONSTRATES THE USE OF INNOVATIVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY IN COLORADO AND FOR WHICH THE INVESTMENT IN THE INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PORTION OF THE PROJECT CONSTITUTES THE MAJORITY OF THE TOTAL PROJECT INVESTMENT,” with the stipulations that the project “GENERATES OR STORES ELECTRICITY WITHOUT EMITTING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE ATMOSPHERE,” and “HAS NOT BEEN WIDELY DEPLOYED IN THE UNITED STATES.” In meeting these criteria, a utility will be “ENTITLED TO RECOVER ANY COSTS OF RESEARCH, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, START-UP, OR OPERATION…” Essentially, this bill allows the legislature to speculate on unproven technology at the low, low (but unspecified) cost of “revenue riders and other cost recovery mechanisms.” Interestingly, there is no provision for life-cycle emissions of manufacturing, shipping and installing the technology that often exceeds that of traditional, more reliable energy production. Strangely, being “widely deployed,” which should serve as an indicator of value is a disqualifier for consideration. While “green” energy has proven efficient at generating campaign contributions, it is not the promised dream of renewable energy.
HB21-1326 “State Fiscal Year Transfers from the General Fund to Support Outdoor Recreation,” “transfers and appropriates a total of $25.0 million to five programs in the Departments of Natural Resources and Local Affairs on top of their normal budgets “on a one-time basis.”
Not a surprise, but “The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety,” making this expenditure exempt from challenge by referendum.
SB21-203 How $2.5 million from the general fund to the department of agriculture for the Colorado Proud program will assist the $47Billion agricultural businesses in “Increasing market opportunities for food and agricultural producers.” is not specified. A cynic might suppose that a 0.005% bump would be almost irrelevant, except in light of Article V, section 34 “Absolute Control” might entail. An equally valid question would be “how much does the $47Billion industry spend on lobbying, and which politicians does it support? Without an indication how it will serve Coloradans, the money is better to remain in their pockets, but since “this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety,” they will not have an opportunity to determine that for themselves.
SB21-204 to appropriate $5,000,000 FY2021-22 to the Department of Local Affairs for the “rural economic development initiative (REDI) grant program,” $187,500 of which may go to administrative costs. There are no metrics of how grant distribution will be determined, the qualifications of those deciding, or how Coloradans as a whole will recoup the investment on their behalf. It is surprising that we survived without it, however, as it was deemed “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety.”
I am a 27 year AF veteran of the Active Duty, Guard and Reserve. My wife Kim & I are blessed with three wonderful children and one outstanding son-in-law, and were fortunate to change military postings about 20 times, to include Canada and Germany. I began my AF career at the Air Force Academy where I earned a degree in Aerospace Structures, before earning my Masters of Science in Structural Dynamics on a Guggenheim Fellowship to Columbia University. During my career, I flew a whole spectrum of aircraft–Attack, Tanker/Transport, Trainer & Remotely Piloted. I was an Environmental Manager for five years as well and formed productive cooperations with state and federal environmental agencies and achieved state recognition for my base, and worked with peace officers from across the state. I concluded my service teaching advanced calculus and powered flight at the USAF Academy. After retirement from the USAF, I returned to commercial aviation, but am currently on “unpaid personal leave” for refusing to submit to an unethical and unsafe experimental medical procedure.
SB21-067 is a prime example of a Trojan Horse. The bill charged the State Board of Education to create a new curriculum instead of approving completed curriculum. Either our legislators foolishly trusted the BoE to create a curriculum contrary to the Board’s ideological predispositions, or the legislators merely worded the Bill to garner the votes to empower the Board of Education to create their intended ideological curriculum. There are proverbial problems with leaping before looking, and in this case, the casualties are our children. As proposed for “Strengthening Civics Education” to rectify “declines in the civic knowledge of the adult population of the United States, ” the Bill asked schools to “review and reinvigorate their civics education curricula. Civics education must include not only classroom instruction and discussion of the fundamentals of the American republic at the federal, state, and local government levels, but it must also include classroom activities through which students model the constitutional republican process and engage in service learning and experiential project-based learning by participating civically in their communities.” To this end it was directed that “THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHALL REVIEW THE CIVICS PORTION OF THE SOCIAL STUDIES STANDARDS AND REVISE THEM AS NECESSARY.”
Restore Liberty recently did a review of the curriculum that was developed. What they found is that “THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION” cannot be trusted with any contact with the mind of a child. Given their history, only a finalized curriculum should ever be considered, yet Mr. Pico voted to give the Statist ideologues a blank slate on which to inscribe their agenda:
FIRST GRADE: In first grade, sexuality and gender identity join race as inclusions in the committee recommendations. It is assumed a child at the age of six has the cognitive ability to fully understand race, sexuality, and religious denominations at the level required to engage meaningfully with these topics. Question 4 of the “Inquiry Questions” under History Standard 1.1.2 for First Grade specifically asks, “How are African American, Latino, Asian American, Indigenous Peoples, LGBTQ, and religious minority cultures different from and similar to one another?”
SECOND GRADE: Elements of (Critical Race Theory*) are evident in the second-grade standards, where Civics Standard 2.4.1 tasks seven-year-olds with recognizing that “voting, representation, lobbying and organizing” are “important to privileged and marginalized individuals, families, and communities.” Those groups referenced as fitting the marginalized criteria are again “African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, Indigenous Peoples, LGBTQ, and religious minorities families.”
(*Critical race theorists hold that racism is inherent in the law and legal institutions of the United States, which function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and people of color, especially African Americans. The theory separates groups into oppressors vs. the oppressed, with a focus on highlighting the abuse of the poor and marginalized at the hands of the wealthy and privileged.)
THIRD GRADE: Third graders are tasked in History Standard 3.1.2 with the “evidence outcome” of being able to “Describe the history, interaction, and contribution of the various peoples and cultures, including, but not limited to, African Americans, Asian Americans, Indigenous Peoples, Latinos, LGBTQ, and religious minorities, that have lived in or migrated to a community or region and how that migration has influenced change and development.” While these elements certainly could be included in historical conversations and studies, third-grade students, who are typically eight years old, likely lack the foundational knowledge to adequately understand and analyze the complex political and social interactions between various groups, particularly across the shifting American historical landscape.”
Furthermore, the committee’s recommendations tend to place the most emphasis on identity-based considerations and politics rather than foundational American documents and principles. For instance, the standards reference the Declaration of Independence only six times and the Bill of Rights only three times within the entire 145-page document. By comparison, the term “LGBTQ” is mentioned 32 times and “Indigenous” appears 66 times throughout the document.
Directing a curriculum is effectively the same as directing educational content via prescribing text books, and violates: ARTICLE IX, Section 16. “Textbooks in public schools. Neither the general assembly nor the state board of education shall have power to prescribe textbooks to be used in the public schools.”
There is a 92% chance your HD Rep voted FOR CRT (while claiming to vote against it). Find out here: https://www.leg.colorado.gov/content/sb21-067vote6ebe28
For whom does your representative work?
CODIFIED EXECUTIVE OVERREACH: TURNING GOVERNMENT OVERREACH INTO LAW
HB22-1128 CO HB1128 | BillTrack50
Sponsor: Andy Pico
Here’s the claim: “Prior Review Of Agency Rules That Burden Industry”
Here’s the reality: ENDING DIVISION OF POWER
“ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE!” would be a good sign at the entrance to the mummy’s tomb, but it would be even more appropriate to stamp on the front of every piece of legislature coming out of Denver. They are painful to read, convoluted, and full of hidden loopholes.
HB22-1128 is clearly designed to be painful to read. What I will analyze is the summary of the bill, because the bill itself is exponentially worse. What HB1128 proposes is to create a process by which the dictates of Executive Branch Rule-Making Agencies will be codified into law, regardless of whether the rule exceeds the agency’s charter (statutes*) or not. All under the guise of the noble sounding “Prior Review Of Agency Rules That Burden Industry”
Remember the CDC mandate to lockdown our country? The CDC does not have that authority. Remember the Federal Law requiring masks on planes? There is no federal law. Remember when OSHA said every business with over 100 employees was required to be vaxx’d? Way out of bounds. If you think these threats have gone away, think again–they’re in hibernation because of election season.
So, if you’re willing to join me for a somewhat painful, but informative trip down Legislative Lane, let’s get started. The black text is that of the bill, the indented blue is my analysis.
* statute: “written law passed by a legislative body.” The statutes of the rule-making agencies of the Executive Branch are the LAWS within which those agencies ostensibly operate.
HB1128 Summary & Review (my comments in RED)
“Under current law, executive agency rules take effect 20 days after the agency adopts the rule, or on a later date if specified in the rule. After adoption, the office of legislative legal services (OLLS) at the direction of the general assembly's committee on legal services (committee) reviews agency rules on an annual cycle, commencing with agency rules adopted on or after November 1 of one year through October 31 of the following year, and recommends the expiration of certain rules to the committee based a determination that the rules do not comply with statute. The committee votes on whether to recommend the non-extension of those rules to the general assembly, as reflected in the annual rule review bill. Rules that are not extended by the general assembly in the annual rule review bill expire on May 15 of the year following the year in which they were enacted.”
Here’s my understanding of how this current system works:
The bill (HB22-1128) requires the governor or the governor's designee to review each proposed rule for compliance with the agency's statutory authority and other criteria set forth in statute, and prohibits an agency from adopting such proposed rule unless and until the governor or governor's designee determines its compliance.
This bill requires the Executive Branch to review the rules made by the Executive Branch’s Rule-Making Agencies, to determine whether the rules made by the Executive Branch exceed the statute authority of the Executive Branch. Thus, if the Executive Branch approves of the rules made by the Executive Branch, they will become actual law via the rubber-stamp of the Legislature via HB1128, unless the Executive Branch determines it has exceeded the statute authority of the Executive Branch. “Other criteria” is a boundless category because “in statute” does not imply “this statute,” or any specific statute, or really even a Colorado statute. This is a blank check by the Legislature to the Executive Branch. This is the fox guarding the henhouse.
The bill creates a new prior review process for review of rules adopted by an agency on and after November 1, 2022, that significantly increase the regulatory burden on businesses, professions, occupations, and industries, including the oil and gas, aerospace, energy efficiency and environmental technology, transportation, and agriculture industries (economic impact rules). As part of the rule-making process, the agency determines whether the rule is an economic impact rule at the conclusion of the rule-making process. The agency must send the list of economic impact rules to the general assembly, the OLLS, and the secretary of state. A rule that an agency determines to be an economic impact rule cannot take effect until completion of the prior review process established in the bill.
This “new process” requires a review of rules that significantly increase the regulatory burden on businesses. But, how do we know if a rule “significantly” increases the regulatory burden? Well, the rule-making agency makes the determination if their increased regulatory burden is “significant.” IF the Executive Branch’s rule-making agency determines that the regulatory burden imposed by the rule it made is “significant” THEN it will go to the next step, otherwise the rule will go into effect 20 days after the EB’s rule-making agency adopts its new rule.
* it would be easy to read that the review process would be for any “economic impact,” but as stated, per the actual definition, “"ECONOMIC IMPACT RULE" MEANS A RULE THAT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THE REGULATORY BURDEN ON BUSINESSES, PROFESSIONS, OCCUPATIONS, OR INDUSTRY, AS DETERMINED BY THE ADOPTING AGENCY.“
Prediction: ALL Executive Branch agency rules will be self-determined to NOT “significantly” increase regulatory burden. Anything undeniably “significant” will be introduced incrementally.
IF, for whatever reason, the EB omits the word “significant”, the rest of the process applies
Each economic impact rule is assigned to a single legislative prior review committee (LPRC) consisting of the members of either the house of representatives' or senate's committee of reference that hears matters relating to the subject of the economic impact rule or that considered the legislation authorizing the economic impact rule. Within 21 days after the commencement of the regular legislative session, the prior review committee may select economic impact rules for review under the prior review process established in the bill.
IF the Executive Branch omits “significant” from its description of the Executive Branch’s increased regulatory burden, THEN the Legislature, by means of a very narrow panel, MIGHT review the rule, otherwise, it slides into law
Economic impact rules that are not selected for prior review take effect on the twenty-second day after the commencement of the legislative session. With respect to economic impact rules selected by a prior review committee (LPRC) for prior review, the prior review committee (LPRC) may take the following actions:
–By majority vote, make the rule effective immediately or on another date;
–By majority vote, determine that the rule exceeds the agency's rule-making authority or fails to meet other requirements for rule-making set forth in statute; or
–Take no action.
IF the Executive Branch’s rule-making agency for some reason includes the descriptor “significant,” THEN the rule MIGHT be selected for review. If it is not selected for review, it takes effect after 3 weeks.
IF the statute-exceeding rule is selected for review, then it could (by majority vote) be implemented IMMEDIATELY. If the statute-exceeding rule is rejected for exceeding the Executive Branch’s rule-making authority, it will be returned to the Executive Branch’s rule-making agency, likely for removal of the word “significantly”
If the committee takes no action on a selected economic impact rule HB22-1128 within 64 days after the commencement of the applicable regular legislative session, the selected rule is deemed effective on the sixty-fifth day after the commencement of the legislative session.
IF the Executive Branch accidentally includes “significantly,” and IF the LPRC determines the rule should be reviewed BUT takes no action...the rule goes into effect in 65 days
Overall: neither the original, nor the new process is unlikely to reject any statute overreach by the Executive Branch, and (by design) most will never receive Legislative review. They are clearly designed to go straight from the Executive Branch to the Code of Colorado Regulations. The difference is that instead of becoming REGULATION, the edicts from the Executive Branch would transition into LAW.
In reaction to the blatant overreach of the Executive Branch, both State and Federal, the solution of our politicians is to codify that overreach under the power and permanence of LAW. There is no problem the government cannot make worse with a “solution.”
This bill is a complete abomination of the separation of powers; they are a complete usurpation of individual sovereignty.
This bill is anathema to the values of our Republic, and as such, NO REPUBLICAN should ever have anything to do with this HB1128, sponsored by “Stephanie Luck (R)*, Paul Lundeen (R)*, & Andres Pico (R)*”
On February 7, this bill was put to a vote as to whether it should be postponed indefinitely. Andy Pico voted “no” that it should not be postponed; presumably he wanted to actually implement the bill he sponsored. Either he did not know what it actually said, or worse, he did.
What makes that even more interesting is that a “no” vote on HB1128 put him in agreement with LibertyScorecardCO.US (who opposes this bill), bumping up his rating. This is not a critique of the scorecard, but it does expose a possible weakness, and potential political gamesmanship.
It is with profound sadness that many in our Legislature are now promoting feticide at any time, for any reason:
This is not only a gruesome promotion of feticide, but a direct threat to the values of our Republic, and to every Right you hold dear. That an individual might be denied standing as a human based on location should terrify everyone.
HOUSE SPONSORSHIP: Froelich and Esgar, Amabile, Bacon, Benavidez, Bernett, Bird, Boesenecker, Caraveo, Cutter, Daugherty, Duran, Exum, Garnett, Gonzales-Gutierrez, Gray, Herod, Hooton, Jodeh, Kennedy, Kipp, Lindsay, Lontine, McCluskie, McCormick, McLachlan, Michaelson Jenet, Mullica, Ortiz, Ricks, Roberts, Sirota, Snyder, Sullivan, Tipper, Titone, Valdez A., Weissman, Woodrow, Young
SENATE SPONSORSHIP: Gonzales, Bridges, Buckner, Coleman, Danielson, Fenberg, Fields, Ginal, Hansen, Hinrichsen, Jaquez Lewis, Kolker, Lee, Pettersen, Rodriguez, Story, Winter, Zenzinger
First, I am no one’s judge, and I am certain God’s mercy and grace are sufficient. If this touches you even remotely, I am very sorry, and sorry for your loss. That many have been deceived by the monstrous lies of this industry is a monumental understatement.
In 1869, Susan B. Anthony wrote ... “No matter the motive,[whether] love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”
Western Medicine hinges on the Hypocratic Oath: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.” Hypocrates recognized that ending the independent life of one either pre-born or already born was the same. This is not a slippery slope, it is an icy double-black diamond. “Don’t ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”
“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are entitled to us by “the Laws of Nature, and Nature’s God.” Rights are contingent on them being endowed by our Creator, If we do not recognize Imago Dei in others, we can not claim it for ourselves. A government refusing to secure the Rights of “the least of these” has no intentions of securing them for any other.
If we surrender one, we surrender them all.
The unborn child is a separate being from his/her mother, making termination of that life a feticide. There are proven life-long physical and emotional damage to the mother of a terminated child that cannot be merely brushed aside for ideological convenience.
There are obvious hardships to carrying any pregnancy to term, but none of them amount to a capital crime by the unborn child. Allowing feticide to cover a crime such as rape precludes justice against the perpetrator, and the failure of the justice system to properly prosecute such crimes cannot be justification to commit another. Allowing abortion through birth, and denying life saving measures to an infant delivered alive, and permitting the use of their bodies in research for organ transplants will usher in a new low in human trafficking and organ harvesting not seen since the holocaust. Given the prevalent placement of feticide clinics in minority neighborhoods should demonstrate that Margaret Sanger's Eugenic dream lives on.
Rights differ from privileges in that the Rights of one incur an obligation to the others. If feticide is a Right, access or provision becomes an obligation to the others which is abhorrent to the Rights of Religion and Conscience. As testified, this bill would allow for no protection of conscience, thus violating the Right of conscience of many doctors. The Right of one cannot preclude or preempt the Rights of another. Although the bill's creators are not concerned about things like zoning, lack of proximity could easily be determined to be a “barrier to access,” disallowing any zoning restrictions. Funding would also be guaranteed, as denial would be a “restriction.”
Psalm 149:13 - “for you formed my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made”
Jeremiah 1:5 - “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart”
Exodus 21:22 - “If men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, ...if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”