Focus on the Family: Voters Should Support Amendment 48

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Will Bob Schaffer get the memo?

Human life needs to be protected at every stage, beginning at the single-cell stage.

Colorado’s Personhood Amendment (Amendment 48), which defines life as beginning at fertilization, goes to voters in November.

“A founding principle of Focus on the Family – and a driving belief of Dr. Dobson’s – is that all human life is sacred and that life begins at the single-cell stage of human development,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family Action. “Amendment 48 articulates this belief and challenges us to declare the inestimable worth of all members of the human family.

“The foundational message of Amendment 48 is clear: All human life has value. Colorado voters should support Amendment 48, and vote for it in November.”  

Kristi Burton, sponsor of the initiative, said: “It’s fact that life has been cheapened over time and Amendment 48, by defining an unborn child as a ‘person,’ can restore the dignity and respect unborn children have lost.”

Bob Schaffer has a long history of being on the far-right extreme of the anti-abortion movement. But recently he flip-flopped, opposing the amendment to define a fertilized egg as a person.

In 2000, Bob said:

Fact: From the moment of conception, this being is alive. It is not dead. In fact, the more science knows about fetal development, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human life, biologically speaking, begins at the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called “conception.”

He goes on:

Let me begin to close by bringing us back to what we have failed to communicate to the nation, and where we have failed America in my judgment. We have not had the moral courage to stand up and say that the expense of ignoring the truth is death, misery, human degradation, and the loss of opportunity and dignity for millions of humans.

When people define freedom as an eight-foot bubble on your way to an abortion mill, it trivializes the protective bubble we really ought to be concerned about, which is the womb. What kind of society is it that makes free speech on a public sidewalk a crime, and then dismisses the silent screams of 1.2 million abortions performed this year as matters of privacy?

Bob, why are you dismissing the “silent screams?” Why have you cashed in your “moral courage” in exchange for winning an election? Is winning your Senate race more important than the “death, misery, human degradation, and the loss of opportunity and dignity for millions of humans?”

Would you be willing to tacitly condone what you consider to be murder in order to win an election?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Is the Denver Post’s Mike Riley Psychic?

You’d think so given the conclusions he made about the newly-released Quinnipiac University poll of the United States Senate race in Colorado.

The debate over energy is probably responsible for the race’s quickly shifting terrain. Schaffer has made it his No. 1 theme, battering Udall in their first debate and in the two weeks since for resisting more drilling in Alaska and off America’s coasts.

How did he come to this conclusion?

With the price of gasoline their highest-ranked financial worry, a majority of Colorado voters now support drilling in both areas, according to Thursday’s poll, which had a margin of error of 2.6 percentage points.

There’s a problem here: Quinnipiac didn’t ask any drilling-related questions in the previous poll. In the previous poll, voters also rated gas prices as their most important economic concern.

According to Floyd Ciruli, “We have seen that the majority of the public is now in favor of offshore drilling, drilling in (the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge), and by a small margin in favor of nuclear. There has just been huge movement, and it’s shifted the Democrats to being on the defensive.”

But there’s no evidence of any “huge movement” between this poll and the last poll, because they didn’t ask about drilling in the last poll. The Rasmussen poll Riley also mentions only covers favorability and likely vote; it has no issues in it at all.

He also fails to mention the third poll that shows Udall with a healthy 9-point lead, casting serious doubt on the statement that “the past two weeks also seem to have left the Democrats’ carefully crafted campaign strategy in tatters.”

Riley pays a tiny bit of lip service to the fact that people are actually on Mark Udall’s side when it comes to solutions, so clearly he gets it. So why did he write the article?

According to the poll, 86% of the electorate thinks the government should be funding renewable energy development, and 6% used to oppose it but now support it. That says to me that the electorate is seeing movement toward Mark Udall’s position, not away from it.

Likewise, 72% of the electorate supports higher mileage standards for cars (including 5% who used to oppose it but now support it), something Bob Schaffer has historically opposed.

All that’s just the icing. Here’s the cake:

Which is the best way to help solve the energy crisis and make America less dependent on foreign oil – A) building new nuclear power plants, B) drilling offshore and in Alaska, C) developing renewable energy sources like solar power, wind power and biofuels, D) releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or E) mandating higher mileage standards for cars?

A) Nuclear power: 9%

B) Drilling: 21%

C) Renewable energy: 54%

D) Strategic Reserve: 4%

E) High mileage cars: 5%

More than twice as many people support renewable energy development over drilling as a solution to the energy crisis. There are dozens of other nuggets in the poll that refute the idea that people think drilling is the answer. Read it for yourself, and tell Mike Riley to leave the commentary for the opinion pages.

Lamborn: Habeas corpus “simply unnecessary” for Gitmo Detainees

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Update by DavidThi808 (ThillyRabbit – feel free to change): This article describes the type of people held at Gitmo. By and large, not major terrorists. Some were allies before we locked them up.


A day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay prisoners can ask a federal judge to rule on their detention, Rep. Doug Lamborn toured the military base. He left after a six-hour visit with what he saw as confirmation that the nation’s top court was wrong.

“They are treated better from a medical standpoint, from a dietary standpoint, from a recreational standpoint, than people are at SuperMax,” Lamborn said, referring to the federal prison in Florence. “They get better medical care than most Americans, including members of Congress.

I trust that next, Lamborn will stage another episode of Naked Chef with Duncan Hunter.

“Especially considering these are not U.S. citizens, they are not on U.S. soil, their rights are being met currently,” Lamborn said.

Actually, that’s the opposite of the truth. The Supreme Court said so.

Would some of the folks from the pro-torture, anti-liberty crowd care to explain the apparent lack of Constitutional knowledge on Lamborn’s part?

Habeas corpus is:

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...