ProgressNow Colorado Relaunches Con Man Cory website
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 19, 2015
CONTACT: Amy Runyon-Harms, Executive Director at 303-870-0448
DENVER: After an enormous response to an action alert to members demanding Sen. Cory Gardner remove his name from a controversial letter to the government of Iran, ProgressNow Colorado, the state’s largest online progressive advocacy organization, announced the relaunch of their Con Man Cory website from the 2014 campaign in order to hold Gardner accountable going forward.
“In response to intense criticism of his ill-advised letter to Iran undermining American foreign policy, Gardner actually said that he hopes that he can ‘work together’ with the President on the issue,” said ProgressNow Colorado executive director Amy Runyon-Harms. “In 2014, Gardner earned the nickname ‘Con Man Cory’ for his audacious falsehoods, like claiming ‘there is no federal Personhood bill’ when he was the legislation’s co-sponsor. Judging from this latest incident, Gardner is still intent on playing his con games as a United States Senator.”
In response to numerous queries and suggestions, ProgressNow Colorado is relaunching our website from the 2014 campaign, ConManCory.com, to build a record of Gardner’s statements and broken promises for the long term. The public and journalists can find links to all of ProgressNow Colorado’s Gardner action alerts and press releases, and new alerts and news stories as they are released.
“By Gardner’s next election,” said Runyon-Harms, “we’ll have all the proof we need in one spot to hold Gardner accountable for his actions. For the next six years, it’s ProgressNow Colorado’s job to keep tabs on Con Man Cory and to ensure that every time he makes a mistake like the Iran letter, he knows Coloradans are watching.”
There is a troubling trend in American thought that holds we should "respect" cops as we might "respect" venomous snakes: by staying away from them, by avoiding eye contact, by not making threatening gestures. "It is important that we respect the legal process and rule of law" because otherwise we will be beaten and sodomized with nightsticks and shot to death on our doorsteps. "It is important that we respect the legal process and rule of law" because the state has a monopoly on violence that it has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to use, especially against poor minorities.
That's not respect. That's terror and fear.
Supreme Court Lets Marriage Wins Stand
Decision not to review lower-court victories means number of states with freedom to marry to skyrocket, but still falls short of national resolution
New York – Today the Supreme Court denied review of five cases seeking the freedom to marry, leaving standing marriage victories in several federal circuits and opening the door to the freedom to marry in many more states, while deferring for another day the national resolution that Freedom to Marry, businesses, elected officials, and families across the country had urged now. The Court’s decision not to review the rulings means that soon as many as 60% of the American people will be living in freedom to marry states, with a majority of the states (30) having the freedom to marry for all.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, released the following statement:
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court leaves in force five favorable marriage rulings reached in three federal appellate courts, ensuring the freedom to marry for millions more Americans around the country. The Court’s letting stand these victories means that gay couples will soon share in the freedom to marry in 30 states, representing 60% of the American people. But we are one country, with one Constitution, and the Court’s delay in affirming the freedom to marry nationwide prolongs the patchwork of state-to-state discrimination and the harms and indignity that the denial of marriage still inflicts on too many couples in too many places. As waves of freedom to marry litigation continue to surge, we will continue to press the urgency and make the case that America – all of America — is ready for the freedom to marry, and the Supreme Court should finish the job.”
With the Supreme Court’s decision not to review the cases, favorable marriage rulings in the 10th Circuit, the 7th Circuit, and the 4th Circuit will soon go into effect. Marriage bans in every state within those circuits will be invalidated, adding Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin to the list of freedom to marry states. As a result of the Court’s decision, an additional 51 million Americans will live in a freedom to marry state.
In total, 41 federal and state courts in the past year have ruled in favor of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples with only one federal and one state ruling going the other way. Five of these marriage wins were before the Supreme Court for possible review.
[I]f you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?Oh, and if that police officer is abusing your rights, including your right to free speech, he says you can always sue later.
Lawsuit Filed to Halt BLM’s Scheduled Wild Horse Roundup on the Wyoming Checkerboard
Scheduled roundup would permanently remove all wild horses on 1.2 million acres.
CHEYENNE, WY (August 1, 2014) – The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC), The Cloud Foundation, and Return to Freedom today filed a lawsuit in federal court in Wyoming to block the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from rounding up over 800 wild horses from the Adobe Town, Salt Wells and Divide Basin Herd Management Areas (HMAs) in the southwestern part of the state.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court of Wyoming by the public interest law firm Meyer Glitzenstein and Crystal, alleges that the BLM violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Wild Horse Act), and the Administrative Procedure Act, by authorizing the permanent removal of hundreds of wild horses from public and private lands within these three HMAs, known as the Wyoming Checkerboard. BLM has authorized this large-scale roundup of wild horses from public land in Wyoming without conducting any environmental analysis, without engaging the public during the decision-making process, and without making certain statutorily required determinations under the Wild Horse Act.
“BLM’s plan to roundup over 800 wild horses from Wyoming is an egregious violation of federal law and established procedures for public input,” said Suzanne Roy, AWHPC director. “In proceeding with this roundup, the agency is blatantly placing ranching special interests over the interests of the American public and our federally-protected wild horses on public land.”
“The BLM’s decision to move forward without any opportunity for public review or comment on such a drastic action is a blatant slap in the face to the American public and the Democratic process,” states Ginger Kathrens, Executive Director of The Cloud Foundation. “Losing these wild horse families so that private livestock interests can continue to make money at taxpayer expense is truly disgusting.”
“If this roundup is allowed to proceed, it will be the beginning of the end for half of Wyoming’s remaining wild horses,” said Neda DeMayo, founder and president of Return to Freedom. “This is just another complacent surrender of the BLM to pressure from livestock ranchers, a convenient tactic to proceed with wild horse eradication.”
Carol Walker, plaintiff in the case and Wild Horse Freedom Federation board member said,” BLM is primed and ready to annihilate wild horse families in the Adobe Town HMA despite the fact that the vast majority of these horses do not even live in the Checkerboard.” The noted photographer and author went on to say, “the horses would not have a chance if this action goes forward. They’ll be destined to a life of incarceration and the American public will lose an iconic symbol of freedom and independence.”
BLM is justifying its decision by claiming the agency is required under a consent decree with the Rock Springs Grazing Association to conduct this roundup. This consent decree resulted from a lawsuit that the Interior Department invited and then settled by capitulating to the rancher’s demands – the elimination of wild horses from the Wyoming checkerboard. Nothing in that agreement, however, authorizes BLM to violate the multiple federal statutes and regulations that govern the permanent removal of federally protected wild horses from public land.
AWHPC and The Cloud Foundation were intervenors in the Rock Springs Grazing Association litigation that resulted in the Consent Decree, and have been fighting BLM’s implementation of the decree since that time. The groups are asking the court to stop the roundup, which is scheduled to begin on August 20.
• Requiring a minimum sentence of dishonorable discharge and dismissal for conviction of sexual assault;
• Assigning at least one fulltime [sic] sexual assault nurse examiner to all military medical facilities that offer 24-hour emergency care;
• Instituting a Special Victims' Counsel program in each service to provide specialized legal counsel to survivors of sexual assault;
• Prohibiting retaliation against service members for reporting a criminal offense while enhancing protections for military whistleblowers;
• Changing the rules for the military equivalent of a grand jury to better protect sexual assault survivors; and,
• Strengthening the review of decisions not to prosecute certain charges of sexual offenses.
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., has been an ardent supporter of forest health and wildland firefighting, and he continues to probe for more information to enhance how fires are managed.
A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Udall wrote a letter Monday to Northern Command leader Gen. Charles Jacoby and U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell asking for a retrospective for the Black Forest Fire.
Udall, along with Colorado's other Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, instigated a major study following the Waldo Canyon Fire that investigates the ecological, social and operational issues involved in fighting that blaze, which claimed 347 homes in Colorado Springs last year.
In his latest effort, Udall thanks Jacoby and Tidwell for their participation in the Black Forest Fire and what further lessons might be learned. He also asked them to explain procedural changes that made the rapid response possible.
From a news release:
Udall has been a leading voice for ensuring that Colorado and the West have adequate resources to prepare for the threat of wildfire, including pressing the U.S. Air Force to quickly transfer and repurpose excess aircraft to the U.S. Forest Service to fight wildfires. He also led the fight to ensure the U.S. Forest Service was able to cut through red tape and secure seven next-generation air tankers. One of the next-generation air tankers Udall fought to acquire helped fight the Black Forest Fire.
Udall also pushed to pass a bipartisan amendment to the U.S. Senate's 2014 budget to allocate $100 million more for wildland firefighting and he successfully secured federal funds to repair drinking-water supplies damaged by 2012's Waldo Canyon and High Park fires.
Here's his letter to Jacoby and Tidwell:
Good news for those who believe in equality: The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and decided that Proposition 8, California's law banning same-sex marriage, will stay dead.
So what does that mean for Colorado same-sex couples? Not a lot. State Attorney General John Suthers noted in a release that the decisions won't spell the end of Colorado's ban on gay marriage.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDS TO SUPREME COURT SAME SEX MARRIAGE DECISIONS
DENVER—The United States Supreme Court issued opinions today on two cases involving same sex marriage. U.S. v. Windsor was a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which denied certain federal benefits to same sex couples married under state laws. Hollingsworth v. Perry was a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 declaring a marriage was between one man and one woman. Proposition 8 is virtually identical to a Colorado constitutional provision passed by voters in 2006.
In striking down DOMA on a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court reiterated that Congress is not given the power in the U.S. Constitution to define marriage and that what constitutes marriage remains the exclusive province of the states. The opinion clarifies that the federal government cannot discriminate against same sex couples recognized as married under state laws. The Attorney General’s Office did not weigh in on the merits of the DOMA case in the Supreme Court.
In the Proposition 8 case, on a 5-4 vote, the court dismissed the case on procedural grounds because the state officials named as defendants in that case declined to defend the state law or appeal the ruling of the trial court striking it down. The 9th Circuit decision invalidating Proposition 8 was therefore vacated, leaving in place the federal trial court decision invalidating Proposition 8. That decision does not invalidate laws of other states, like Colorado, which limit marriage to a man and a woman. As a result, the Supreme Court did not rule on the status of state laws and constitutional amendments that expressly prohibit same sex marriage.
Attorney General John W. Suthers issued the following statement in response to the decisions:
"We joined an amicus brief in the Proposition 8 case seeking clarity about the ability of states to adopt traditional definitions of marriage as Colorado’s voters did in 2006. The Supreme Court did not provide such clarity today. We will continue to analyze the opinions and will be prepared to defend Colorado statutes and constitutional provisions in the future."
For the sixth year running, a ban on funding to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site is making its way into law.
In a news release, Not 1 More Acre!, an advocacy group fighting to keep the Army from claiming more land in southeast Colorado for maneuvers, announced the military construction budget that was marked up in the Military Construction Subcommittee of the U.S. House Appropriations Committee today will continue the funding ban on "any action that relates to or promotes the expansion of the boundaries or size of the U.S. Army's Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site."
Here's the entire news release from Jean Aguerre, president of Not 1 More Acre!
Keeping the funding ban in the law has been a top priority for N1MA! as it fights to protect fragile prairie lands being ravaged by the Pentagon's armored tanks, high-tech weapons systems and training at the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site. The funding ban was first passed by Congress in 2007 to stop a massive secretly planned military expansion across 6.9 million acres of fragile native grasslands. For technical reasons related to the U.S. Senate's failure to enable a permanent prohibition on expansion of the site, the funding ban must be renewed every year by expansion opponents and their Representatives in the House.
Aguerre announced the renewal of the funding ban for the sixth consecutive year as Not 1 More Acre! hurled its third challenge against the Army's Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site environmental disclosures in just six weeks. The latest N1MA! rebuke was filed Wednesday (May 15, 2013) by the Denver-based Ewegen Law Firm in response to the "Programmatic Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact for the Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan 2013 - 2017 for Fort Carson and the PiÃ±on Canyon Maneuver Site."
[Find that document here: 2013-2017-Integrated-natural-resource-management-plan-and-environmental-assessment.pdf]
N1MA's latest effort to parry the Army's expansion plans followed on the heels of objections filed on Tax Day, April 15 that exposed the Army's shadowy partial disclosure of illegal construction supporting expansion at PCMS. Just three weeks earlier, on March 21, N1MA! protested the Army's claim that ongoing and expanded operations at the remote Southern Great Plains maneuver site pose no significant environmental or economic impacts. N1Ma's reprimand called those findings a "bizarre greenwash of an ongoing assault on fragile prairie grasslands in an area that Fritz L. Knopf, an historical Great Plains ecologist, describes as the 'headwinds' of the 1930s Dust Bowl."
The N1MA! reproach filed Wednesday accused the Army of continuing to "piecemeal its plans for the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site in an effort to sidestep basic requirements of the funding ban, the National Environmental Policy Act and a 2009 Federal District Court ruling that vacated the PCMS Transformation Record of Decision issued by the Army in its original efforts to expand the site."
Over the last nearly eight years the Army has issued a staggering 10,000 pages of alleged
NEPA documentation - all of which make the absurd claim that the Army's actions have no significant impact to the quality of the environment, economy and culture of the Southern Great Plains.
In one segmented document after the next, the Army's analysis methodology ignores science and even the sound principles of science that establish military damage to the shortgrass prairie are irreparable and irreversible. Even as military training expands - less than 5% of the PCMS is off limits to training - and intensifies, the Army and its tax-supported real estate partners encumbering land in the region to be managed for military needs employ environmental tactics that appear to trick 'neighbors' and the public into believing that impacts will be insignificant.
While admitting the "sheer amount of alphabet soup" generated by the Army's disclosures and the legal processes are confusing, Aguerre said the underlying theory of the law isn't complicated. The Sikes Act, passed in 1960, recognizes the importance and value of natural and
cultural resources to military lands. Accordingly, the Sikes Act requires the Department of Defense to develop and implement Integrated Natural and Cultural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs/ICRMPs) for military installations across the United States.
"As a further example of this deceptive piecemealing, N1MA! asks where the Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan is and why it wasn't issued as part of the Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan? And, why - except to mislead and confuse taxpayers - does the Army continue to ignore science that proves all the past, current and future military damage will devastate the entire region? The Army's 'make-believe NEPA' fails to comply either the spirit or letter of the law while perpetrating real-life catastrophic impacts to our security and health," Aguerre said.
The Army's latest mockery of environmental and economic impact analysis should be withdrawn because it fails to meet the basic requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. It also fails to heed the mandates of Congress as expressed in the funding ban - renewed for the sixth consecutive year on this very day. This Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan fails to make sense from a policy standpoint and it would both sanction and inflict massive and irreversible damage on America's last major intact grassland, a fragile ecosystem that elsewhere has not yet recovered from the devastation wrought by ill-considered federal government policies that led to plowing of these fragile grasslands in the 1920s in the bone-headed public campaign that "rain follows the plow." In fact, what followed the plow when the inevitable drought cycle reasserted itself was this nation's most catastrophic environmental collapse, the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
The Army, its contractors and politicians, in defiance of the law, scientific knowledge and common sense, are effectively asking the public to believe that "rain will follow the tank!" and magically reseed and renew these tortured lands. Alas, the best science on this subject shows that the notion that invasive species can somehow revive devastated grasslands that required thousands of years of natural processes to reach their original productive state is a discredited policy as misguided and mischievous as the original "rain follows the plow" folly, Aguerre said.
But that doesn't mean the Army is giving up. It continues to try to win the hearts and minds of people in southern Colorado, including those of tender age.
Here's a shot of a Girl Scout being indoctrinated into the ways of war, sent to us from Doug Holdread of Trinidad:
And here's a report on how the Army is appealing to the young folk in Trinidad.
The exclusionary policies of the Scouts has been an issue for decades. We wrote about it here. Those who have advocated for greater inclusivity are responding to the announcement, saying it's a step in the right direction, but it fails to go far enough.
The Courage Campaign, for instance, notes the following:
Statement by Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of CourageCampaign.org on the Boy Scout’s announcement today:
"Despite the efforts of a vocal minority, from politics to business to culture, we are seeing a rapid and historic shift towards equality for all. The Boy Scouts are now beginning to catching up with this reality. This is yet another step in the right direction towards ending discrimination against LGBT youth across this country. Yet, the Boy Scouts need to go further and end all discrimination within their organization. Discrimination and hatred have no place in a country founded on the principles of liberty, justice and equality."