Society must protect those who are being exploited by human trafficking

Saturday was the 150th Anniversary of Congress passing the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution abolishing slavery.

The final House vote was 119 to 56, with all Republican members voting for abolition of slavery, and 16 Democrats breaking with their party to move the resolution to the states for ratification.

Today, human trafficking is the fastest growing business of organized crime, and the third largest criminal enterprise in the world. Involuntary prostitution, forced labor, other forms of slavery, and forced harvesting of human organs are the main offences within the term human trafficking.

On Tuesday, the Republican led Congress once again took up fight to end slavery in all its forms. The House passed 12 measures aimed at ending human trafficking in the US. Unlike the vote of 1865, this year’s votes drew a little more support from the Democrat ranks.

For more information about the International effort to fight modern day slavery, please visit the UN Office of Drugs and Crime, Human Trafficking Section.

Freedom is consistently in peril, and society must protect those who are being exploited.
____________________________________________
M Soper, "Society must protect those who are being exploited by human trafficking," GJ Sentinel (Online) 2 Feb 2015 http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/email-letters-february-2-2015 accessed 5 Feb 2015. 

Shouldn’t the ‘minimum-wage’ include compensating unpaid interns?

Loaded with optimism and student loans, the law grad sees the advertisement that reads: Democratic member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary seeks law clerk for Fall 2014, full time, unpaid.

Presuming that law grad did not have a trust fund or wealthy parents to subsidize the inflated cost of living for Washington, DC, working for the powerful on Capitol Hill would be outside consideration.

How in the world can those who tout raising the minimum wage get by without paying at least the minimum for assistance?

Before scratching your head too much, let’s look at the economic and legal dynamics involved in this

White House internship programme. 2011 Getty/McNamee.

conundrum.

During President Barak Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address, he asked Congress to pass the Harkin and Miller bill and raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour. The President went one step further by unilaterally signing Executive Order 13659 which raises the wage of federally contracted workers to $10.10 per hour.

Perhaps it should be noted here that White House interns are not paid. Yet these are highly sought after positions that see young brains fulfilling a full time position for six months to a year.

According to a 2012 Intern Bridge survey, more than half of all post-undergrad and grad-school internships and traineeships are unpaid. Many students desperately really on these work related experiences to land higher paying career type jobs.

In the years since the 2007-08 Financial Crisis, unpaid internships and traineeships have become the new norm. Many companies were unable to pay new workers during the crisis and new workers were eager just to gain experience.

The wave of unpaid internships in the private sector came to a skidding halt in June 2013 when a federal district court in New York held in Glatt et al. v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. that the company had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying for “benefits received.”

The Department of Labor has developed a six-part test, based on Supreme Court case law relating to railroad company’s trainees, to determine whether for-profit companies must pay interns.

In short, in order for a private business to meet Labor’s standards, the internship must be wholly for the benefit of the intern and not the employer – that’s a pretty tough to satisfy.

According to The 2013 Student Survey, a graduate who had a paid internship experience makes a medium starting salary of $51,930, compared with $35,721 for those who had an unpaid internship experience.

Law firms are also willing to pay for new associate’s experiences and connections to judges and lawmakers through clerkships. Many firms will pay a 20% bonus on top of a starting salary.

President Obama announces a $10.10 hourly minimum wage
during the 2014 State of the Union Address. USAToday.

With some of the highest paid first-year associates earning just over $160,000, why are we worrying about the President and his Congressional cronies not paying their clerks?

Firstly, if it was the private sector, it would be illegal under the pay-for-benefits test.

Secondly, with the average law school debt in America hovering around $150,000, it is very difficult for a newly minted grad to go a year without a pay check, no matter how amazing the potential bonus, from the potential job, might be. Unless, of course that grad has the coveted silver-spoon in the mouth, in which case, even a minimum wage would be offensive to the privileged elite.

This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue; instead, this is a remnant of the old Governmental privilege which must go away. Currently, only the better-off people in society get to undertake such unpaid positions. The less fortunate must take paid positions that don’t come with connections.

If the President and Congress want everyone to be paid a proper wage, then shouldn’t “everyone” include the currently unpaid staff?

Hickenlooper's new trademark more than just a beer coaster

This past summer, Gov. John Hickenlooper unveiled a new ‘trianglized-licence plate looking’ trademark to market the State of Colorado nationwide and overseas. More recently, State Rep. Bob Rankin (R-Glenwood Springs), introduced legislation to have the people decide whether they want a new logo for Colorado.

Colorado's new federally registered trademark

A week ago, H.B. 1017 was killed by the Democrats, on a party line vote, in the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee.

Rep. Rankin fell short of promulgating the negative legal consequences Hickenlooper’s new trademark may have on Colorado businesses. To begin, we need to first understand some basics of American trademark law.

 

A trademark is a word or phrase, logo, or other graphic symbol used by a manufacturer or seller to distinguish its product or products from others in the market place. The main purpose of a trademark is to designate the source of goods or services. Therefore, a trademark is something that only exists with respect to some commercial activity.

Trademarks can take one of three forms: standard character format; stylized/design format; or sound mark. For example, the word: “Coke” is a standard character mark, which means any style or symbol with the word “Coke” is protected under the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946. The Coke bottle-logo is a good example of a stylized/design mark. And yes, the roar of the Harley-Davidson engine is a protected sound mark.

When federally registering marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a class of goods or services must be indicated. Going back to the “Coke” example, the Coca-Cola Company has registered the use of the Coke mark on everything from clothing to toys to food and drink products.

A quick search of the USPTO shows that Hickenlooper’s trademark is registered as a standard character mark, which means that the trademark owner has an obligation to pursue any individual or entity that uses the words: “CO” or “Colorado” on any “Clothing, namely, tee shirts, sweat shirts, polo's, hats, and jackets.”

In layman’s terms, Hickenlooper has successfully stifled private businesses in Colorado who make a living putting the word “Colorado” on a t-shirt and selling it to tourists. In other words, the state is now a direct competitor in the intellectual property arena with Colorado businesses.

In order to avoid open licencing, the State of Colorado will be forced to send hundreds of cease-and-desist-letters to small business across this state who dare infringe upon the state’s intellectual property right.

The second registered class which Hickenlooper is claiming is for “promoting public awareness about Colorado itself, and public services offered through Colorado state government entities, as well as promoting products and services originating from Colorado businesses and organizations.” Here, the state may have a legitimate interest, but the question still remains, why are they claiming a mountain of rights, when they really on need a hill?

The USPTO search also revealed the registered owner is not listed as the State of Colorado, but as Brand Colorado, a division of Colorado Nonprofit Development Center, which is located in Boulder. Shouldn’t the trademark owner be an actual state entity, such as the Colorado Tourism Office?

The Hickenlooper Administration’s effort to replace the Colorado State flag and seal with a trendier brand/trademark circumvents the reason for emblems of state. The current state trademarks – the flag and seal – identify and distinguish the source of state services / goods for the public. Additionally, each agency has its own trademark to indicate to the public the services they offer.

Creating more official trademarks to represent the State of Colorado blurs the distinction of which trademark represents, which is the source of the services. In other words, more marks confuse the public about which one actually represents the State of Colorado.

This past summer I was at the US Open Tennis Championships in New York and saw a man with a ball cap and Colorado flag on it. I asked him if he was from Colorado, as it is always great to see fellow Coloradoans when outside the state. He told me he had just spent a week holidaying in Aspen and thought we had a really cool flag design. Perhaps this New Yorker was not the target of the new trademark marketing campaign.

During my time in Edinburgh, Scotland, it was quite common to see tourists with stylized Colorado gear, mostly an artistic version of the red “C” with fields of blue and white. Of perhaps all the states, Colorado has one of most iconic and memorable flag-trademarks and adding a new mark only serves to block intellectual property fields which should be in the hands of the private sector.

Adding a new trianglized-licence plate looking trademark to the state’s intellectual property portfolio only serves to confuse the general public on which mark actually represents the State of Colorado. Additionally, Hickenlooper’s mark fails the state’s real objective, which is to market the state to tourists, businesses, and investors. 

Coloradan Ron Binz is not suited to be FERC chairman

Senators Mark Udall & Michael Bennet introduce Ron Binz

Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearing on Colorado’s Ron Binz to be President Barack Obama’s Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission chairman saw electromagnetic shock-waves blast from Alaska to West Virginia.

Senate committee hearings can be dry, dull and draining — perfect events for playing online poker or doodling.

Tuesday’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., was far from boring.

One lobbyist in line commented, “This is the first FERC appointee in my 30-year career which has drawn a crowd.” In fact, there were twice as many spectators as seats. A vast overflow spilled into the halls resembling a queue for a rock concert, rather than a committee meeting.

Energy transmitted over FERC-regulated pipes and wires is worth nearly $400 billion per year. Grand Junction’s Greg Walcher, in his book, “Smoking them out: The theft of the environment and how to take it back,” states that the transmission of power is the most difficult issue facing the environment today.

FERC regulates the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce, along with licensing of electric production, pipelines and liquid natural gas terminals. FERC does not regulate the source, merely the transmission of electricity on the grid.

So, what is so controversial about Obama’s FERC appointee from Colorado?

Four things:

✔ The Colorado Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act

✔ The “30 percent by 2020” Colorado mandate

✔ Allegations of Binz misleading or lying to the Energy Committee’s ranking member

✔ Binz’s statement that natural gas would be a “dead end” by 2035.

Binz, the former chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission under Gov. Bill Ritter, co-authored Colorado’s controversial, $1.3 billion Clean Air, Clean Jobs Act of 2010, which pitted Colorado coal producers against the natural gas industry.

The act requires Xcel Energy to retire or retrofit 900 megawatts of Front Range coal-fired power plants into facilities fueled by natural gas or other energy sources.

The act received broad bipartisan support. Former Senate Minority Leader Sen. Josh Penry, then of Grand Junction, co-sponsored the legislation. Subsequently, Penry was criticized for accepting employment with an energy consulting firm.

The “30 percent by 2020” mandate was originally co-authored by Binz in 2007. It required Colorado’s energy providers to have 20 percent of their portfolios coming from renewables by 2020. The law was amended in 2010 to increase renewables to 30 percent.

Locally, state Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Aspen, who co-sponsored the 2020 mandate and represents a district with natural gas wells and coal mines, was criticized for destroying hundreds of western Colorado jobs.

The third controversy stems from the fact Binz told Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska he had not engaged the assistance of lobbyists to secure his nomination. However, open records of White House emails revealed Binz’s nomination was being coordinated by FERC staff, a PR firm and consultants.

The defense: Binz claims he did not pay for or ask for these services.

Finally, in a statement several years ago, Binz described natural gas as being a “dead end” by 2035 without carbon capture and sequestration. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming directly asked Binz about this quote, to which he replied, “I believe the technology will be perfected by 2035.”

The “dead end” quote and beliefs about carbon capture and sequestration are likely to lump senators from coal and natural gas-producing states in the same camp, opposing Binz.

The Energy Committee has 22 members: 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans. All committee members vote. A tie vote ends the nomination. Simple majority sends the nomination to the full Senate for consideration.

Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat is from a coal-mining state and has threatened to vote “nay.” If Manchin joins the Republicans, then the Binz nomination will fail.

Indications are that Obama suffered significant loss of political prestige from his venture into war mongering with Syria. Last week three Democrats opposed Larry Summers to be chairman of the Federal Reserve and Summers withdrew his name from consideration. And now, one Democrat — Manchin — is holding up the Binz nomination.

To understand the complexities of the controversy, one must understand the dynamics of traditional-versus-renewable energy producing states; power providers versus consuming states; and rich versus poor states.

Americans desire affordable power. However, the energy source is not always conveniently located to power plants, which are usually a long way from cities and our homes.

FERC is important because it regulates the transmission of electricity through power lines or gas through pipelines.

Binz’s history here in Colorado is one of picking winners and losers in the energy sector. FERC needs a chairman who is not gambling and playing politics at the expense of consumers who are paying higher electric rates year after year.

__________________________________________________________________

Soper, Matt.  "Coloradan Ron Binz is not suited to be FERC chairman." Grand Junction Daily Sentinel 22 Sept 2013: B7 <http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/coloradan-ron-binz-is-not-suited-to-be-ferc-chairm> accessed 22 Sept 2013

Dems press 'gerrymandered' congressional re-district plan

Democrat congressional re-districting map

The Democrats should be ashamed of their leaders in the Colorado General Assembly, as the re-districting proposals are simply outrageous! A fundamental tenet of law is that it should be known and written as to be understandable by the people. Legal modifications in congressional districts should respect the principle of continuity, as to allow constituents to know their district and those who represent them in the US House of Representatives.

The proposed congressional re-districting plan drawn by State Senator Gail Schwartz (D-Aspen) and State Representative Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) fractures the Western Slope and Eastern Plains, lumps Colorado Springs and Highlands Ranch into the same district, and throws Delta and Mesa Counties into the same congressional district as liberal Boulder County! These major changes divide analogous geographic regions, rural communities and regional cultures and economies. Along with completely re-drawing the congressional district map in order to manipulate the boundaries of the electoral constituencies so as to favour one political party. This tactic is known as Gerrymandering.

Republican congressional re-districting map

Nearly 200 years ago Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry and his party drew a new voting district to favour their political party – on a map the shape appeared to resemble a salamander, complete with claws and fangs. The Democrat’s proposed map is so heavily re-drawn that all seven districts have ‘legs’ extending towards Denver. The reality is that if the Democrat leaders or worse, the Colorado Supreme Court, is allowed to draw such one-sided manipulated boundaries, then all of Colorado’s congressional delegation could come from within an hour of Denver International Airport. Not very representative of a state with diverse regions, made up of rural and urban communities – each with opposing values, morals and norms.

Current Colorado congressional district map

I urge my fellow Coloradoans to call, write or email your state legislator to advocate keeping gerrymandering out of Colorado and to support the doctrine of continuity and principle of keeping similar communities, cultures, and geographic areas within the same congressional district. The last thing we need are legislators from liberal Aspen and Boulder sticking their ‘claws and fangs’ into the future of Colorado! [1], [2]


____________________________________

[1] M Soper, "Democrats’ redistricting maps amount to same old gerrymandering" E-Mail LTE (The Daily Sentinel: Grand Juncion, CO) 21 April 2011 http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/e-mail-letters-april-21-2011 accessed 21 April 2011
[2] M Soper, "Dems’ redistricting proposals are outrageous" LTE (Delta County Independant: Delta, CO) 27 April 2011 http://www.deltacountyindependent.com/opinion/20977-dems-redistricting-proposals-are-outrageous.html accessed 1 May 2011

Arizona shooting ignites debate over freedom of speech, right to bear arms & access to elected officials

A horrible and tragic shooting has struck the United States, only this time a member of Congress was shot in the head and is in critical, but stable condition. Six people were killed at a political event in Tuscan, Arizona on Saturday, 8 January 2011, including senior Federal Judge John Roll, a nine year old girl and four others. Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and 12 others were injured during the shooting. The accused is Jared Loughner, a 22-year old Army reject who was unemployed and living with his parents at the time of the tragedy. Loughner was reportedly rejected for reasons of mental unsoundness, a point which will more than likely be a defence to his two counts of federal murder charges and one count of attempting to assassinate a member of the United States’ Congress. Separate charges will ensue for liability under Arizona criminal law. Both Arizona and the US have the penal sanction of capital punishment as a tariff for criminal liability. In my opinion, the justice system should render justice and a capital penalty for the actions of the accused.

The greatest fear stemming from this shooting is (i) antigun legislation and (ii) access to all-ready-elite-members-of-congress being limited due to security - which is horrible for any ‘democratic-republic’, such as the US, Canada and many EU states. No crime is solved by more legislation - bad things happen to good people and that's a fact of life - as a society we cannot prevent all harm, as to do so would be to have safety without liberty or freedom. “If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom” – President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969). Rebuts to arguments concerning freedom, liberty and opportunity tend to be based on the notion of creating a more secure society. Think about it, health care legislation was passed in 2010 to give Americans the ‘peace of mind’ that they will not have to worry about what happens when they get ill or are the victims of a delictual liability. In the name of public safety and security legislation is being introduced in the halls of Congress to limit the scope of the Second Amendment and undermine a fundamental right enjoyed by Americans. Firearm ownership is a right enshrined in higher law, which is unlike a driver’s license for a motor vehicle, which is a privilege not to be abused. America’s third President and early advocate for limited government, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) proclaimed, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Rep Giffords was shot in front of a Safeway

Nationally sensationalized and emotionally devastating catastrophes tend to produce an outcry for reform and prevention. The Tuscan supermarket shooting is no exception. In a highly charged polarized environment, liberal bloggers began accusing former Alaska Governor and 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin as having been the promulgating factor behind the assassination attempt of US Representative Giffords. Palin had listed the congresswoman’s seat on her “cross-hairs” targeted districts. If Palin’s rhetoric is “blood libel”, then perhaps the Democrats need to re-assess their own political free speech. In October 2010, American Vice-President Joe Biden told party stalwarts at a fundraiser in Minnesota that he was going to “strangle Republicans” who complained about the budget or how he encouraged supporters to “kill patriotic Republicans” who were using ‘procedure and substance to block a health care vote’ in the US Senate. Therefore, if President Barak Obama’s memorial conversation to the country about how “discourse has become so sharply polarised [...] we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds”, then he assumedly means both sides of the political spectrum. If this presumption is in the affirmative, then ‘Hollywood’ sensational ‘documentaries’, such as the one funded by top Democratic Party donor and billion George Soros, which celebrates left-wing terrorists who plotted to napalm Republicans at the 2008 GOP Convention (and encourages ‘freedom fighting’ tactics in ridding America of its second largest political party) a “wound” which does not serve to heal the widening partisan divide of the last decade. If the president wants to be a leader, then he himself needs to reign in members of his own party who have crept into militant like tactics before chiding opposition rhetoric. Otherwise it looks as if the president is but a mere politician preparing for another campaign.

A shooting is horrible, though it hasn’t taking long for politicians and the media to turn this random event into a national catastrophe. Let’s get the facts straight, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 46 individuals are victims of ‘murder’ every single day of the year in the US. Everyone with ‘bleeding liberal hearts’ need to lighten up see this in perspective of the larger picture of falling victim to over emotionalizing one tragic shooting over another. Let's not let one horrible event destroy the purity of our current democratic system.

The law concerning polygamy

Today while I was reading and annotating a few in preparations for my International Private Law tutorial I was reminded about an original aim of the Grand Old Party. In the mid-1800s there was wide-spread public hostility towards the practice of polygamy, meaning being married to more than one person concurrently. Joseph Smith, the founder and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), had a revelation in 1843 in which he called for men to marry more than one woman. Nine years later the Mormon Church officially announced polygamy was religiously superior to monogamy. Public outcry led to religious leaders, journalists and politicians denouncing the practice. The Republican Party, organized in Jackson, Michigan on 6 July 1854, had as their first national platform a denouncement of polygamy and slavery as “those twin relics of barbarism.”

The seminal case of polygamy came in England with Hyde v Hyde [1866] 1 LR-P & D, in which the Court declared marriage as being between one man and one woman. The leading American case is that of Reynolds v U.S. (1878) 98 US 145, in which the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Mormon leader for polygamy by rejecting the appellant’s claim to religious liberty as protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In the UK most legal rights and privileges concerning married and cohabitating couples have been extended to same-sex couples by virtue of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The concept of only two parties being privileged to a marriage or partnership was preserved. The common law in the UK has made special allowances for bigamy on a case by case basis.

The concept of bigamy (having two spouses) at common law was and is no different than that of polygamy. The U.S. Model Penal Code, s 230(1) classifies polygamy as a third-degree felony and the offence subsists until all cohabitation with and claim of marriage to more than one spouse terminates. Aliens from other jurisdictions visiting the US or the UK will not be any violation of criminal laws, so long as polygamy is lawful in the alien’s nation of origin.

Obama: The Great “American” Finger Pointer

Pres. Barak Obama’s first, hopefully only, term policies has resulted in business unfriendly tax policies, vast government spending and burdensome new financial and health care regulations. Not to mention an industry killing moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico which provides a quarter of all oil consumed in the United States. The combination of these policies has resulted in unemployment soaring to 10 per cent and many small businesses struggling to stay in existence.

This president has the audacity of pointing fingers at everyone from a Cambridge, Mass. police officer to business and industry leaders. Somehow he has managed to depict both Wall Street and BP as "fat cat bankers", engaging in "reckless practices", a label which has managed to put-off many former supporters within the business community. Instead of working with those within the business and industry, Obama has opted to point his index finger and use his bully pulpit to tell the world, whom he thinks is liable to the world for damages. What happened to the mantra of former American Pres. Harry S. Truman, the one that went, “The buck stops here”? What hasn’t been the fault of “big business,” “fat cat bankers,” “failed Bush years,” a “broken system” or “racist Republicans,” seems to be the fault of “a maverick general,” “bigoted police officer,” “employers” or “insurance companies”.

This finger pointing president started blaming BP for the oil leak, after BP told the nation they fully accepted responsibility and were going to “make it right”. Where was the president during the first few weeks of the disaster – holidaying, attending a Paul McCartney concert and hanging out with Hollywood celebrities? Not bad for a guy “deeply concerned” for the people of the Gulf States.

Can Pres. Obama deliver a single speech without having to raise his hand and turn it into a physical finger point at the camera? Instead of blaming everyone and their dog for the problems facing America, perhaps the president would be well served to stand-up and tell the nation the “buck stops here!” There are no simple solutions, but there are intelligent choices and those choices come from surrounding yourself with advisors who are willing to think outside the box and conjure up creative alternatives to cyclical failed policies.

Policy items which should be tackled are reducing excessive government spending, creating a plan to pay down the deficit, loosening financial regulation to give small businesses the liquidity to return to work and start hiring again, sending soldiers to the US-Mexico border to bring peace and security to an ever-growing national security threat. Taking steps to stop illegal immigration and then working with employers to design an effective guest worker programme to meet the needs of the nation’s agricultural sector. Allowing American soldiers abroad to either fight or come on home. The bulk of the agenda should be centred on domestic affairs, as the world is best served by a healthy American economy that can import and export goods, in return helping bring the world’s economies back on their feet.

The United States should lead by example, not by bold words and finger pointing. The alternative is this headline: While Obama finger pointed, America burned and the world states left them in the dust.

A Conversation with five Republican Governors

Not many Americans are privy to a conversation among five governors from across the United States, however on Thursday, 16 July 2010, I was a listening member of a discussion which was completely non-politically-correct, policy based, and void of stump speech rhetoric. The event hosted by the Aspen Institute and the Republican Governors Association, featured Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

The conversation came just hours after British Petroleum (BP) announced they had finally stopped the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Gov. Haley Barbour said the cap is only to be seen as a temporary fix and that a permanent solution is from the relief wells. All five governors agreed Pres. Obama’s ban on off-shore drilling was bad for the gulf state’s economies. Not only has the oil leak damaged the tourism, fishing, and related industries, but the ban on drilling has resulted in the laying off of thousands of workers employed by oil & gas companies. The analogy of ceasing all air travel following a major airplane crash was used to describe the logic behind the oil drilling ban.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry was dressed all in black with a t-shirt and a leather sports coat. The lettering on the t-shirt read, “Marshall Law”. Gov. Perry jokingly commented he didn’t think a shirt declaring succession would fly. Gov. Perry went on to say it was the name of a new band in Texas and that he was wanting to give them a little regional publicity as he is all about helping businesses succeed and become profitable. This allowed Gov. Perry to segue-way into talking about how competition and business are the driving forces of America.

Penry signs on as Norton's campaign manager?!?

Rarely to I ever pick up the Denver Post, turn to Mike Littwin’s column and say, “Gee, I agree with this Left-wing, flower snuffer...” However, Friday, 23 April’s edition, Littwin got it spot-on (for once). As shocked as I am to agree with such a liberal, I am even more stunned that State Sen. Josh Penry jumped on board Jane Norton’s US Senate team as her new campaign manager. Like many politicos, I never expect the Republican’s rising star and State Senate Leader to be adding campaign manager to his répertoire.

Jane Norton scored a major bonus by tapping the name recognition, political genius, and conservative clout, along with youth and energy which comes with Josh Penry. Having Penry at the helm of the Norton campaign is tremendous for Jane. What about Josh? It seems very odd that a guy, who has served in the Colorado House of Representative and Senate, along with briefly running for Governor, would take several steps to the side and become a campaign manager for a US Senate campaign – a campaign where he himself had a very real possibility of running and being elected.

Josh Penry has created the biggest test of his political career – the discipline test – if Josh can be regimented enough to keep Jane Norton in the limelight and stay in the shadows, while leading a precisioned team, then Colorado should expect a very powerful Norton campaign which should devastate either one of the clowns who happen to emerge from the Democrat’s primary.

Littwin compared Penry’s new role to the likes of Dick Wadhams during the two victorious Allard Campaigns, however this isn’t a good analogy, as Penry has been an elected official and Wadhams has never served in a public capacity.

Being too much of a ‘frontman’ can be dangerous to a political campaign, as was seen with John Marshall’s mistake in the Walcher congressional and Beauprez gubernatorial campaigns (Marshall was quoted in the media as much as Beauprez during the 2006 cycle).

Traditionally, campaigns emphasize the candidate as presenting the positive message through the party manifesto, whereas the campaign managers’ duty was to be the attack dog as is noted by famous managers, namely Carl Rove, Steve Schmidt, and Dick Waddams. While Josh has been a marvellous quarterback (literally and politically), his new, self-created challenge, what kind of a coach will he be?

My bet, Penry will prove to be as successful a manager (coach) as a candidate (quarterback) in the political arena.

Republicans help keep the Democrats in power - a modern American tradition

It looks like the Republicans are working hard to ensure the Dems stay in power. A guy by the name of Jimmy Lakey is now challenging Ryan Frazier in the 7th Congressional District. Primaries cost a lot of money and expound a lot of manpower just to demonstrate are going to win the primary. Congressman Ed Perlmutter, who has $500,000 in the bank and is working on a $100,000 a month campaign contribution drive, this is before the DNC, 527s, PACs, and big donors start playing. Ryan is polling very well against Perlmutter and has a very real shot of winning, however, if he does win, it will be within 3 of 4% or less, which mean damage sustained in the primary could give that percentage to Perlmutter, allowing him to coast to an easy re-election.