Mitt Romney’s claim of credit for the auto industry turnaround

Today, ALEC Brings Lawmakers And Big Oil Together To Undermine Clean Energy

By Rebecca Leber on May 11, 2012

Today, behind closed doors in Charlotte, North Carolina, legislators from 15 states will meet with the oil and gas industry to discuss so-called “model legislation” as part of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The result could be laws that handicap renewable energy targets — while creating loopholes for fossil fuels, written directly by the oil and gas industry itself.

ALEC has faced backlash recently for its role in crafting Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws. Now the organization is taking the same secretive approach to kill renewable energy development across the country.

Oil and gas corporations have a very strong role in politics through groups like Americans For Prosperity, American Petroleum Institute, and, of course, ALEC. Four of the largest oil and gas corporations and two of the most profitable U.S. corporations overall, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, sit on ALEC’s task forces. And so today, according to documents posted by Common Cause, representatives from these and other energy groups will discuss potential legislation that would undermine clean energy standards and limit regulations of polluting industries.

The agenda items illustrate ALEC’s objectives.  Read More

There have been a lot of articles lately about the 15 corporations who have left ALEC, which is a good, positive thing. Perhaps it is pessimistic, but these are the companies still belonging to ALEC.

The link above gives you the full list of corporate ALEC members, aka the 1%, those who steal our democracy away with their money. Among the full list of ALEC members, these are perhaps the worst offenders: AT&T, Bank of America, BP, Chevron, Bayer, Exxon Mobil Corporation, General Electric Company, General Electric Company, Koch Companies Public Sector, Shell Oil Company and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Each of these companies has its own special place in hell. Who among us has not done business with most or all of these companies? They use our money to rob us of a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Wouldn’t it be grand if people started boycotting these companies, writing their headquarters, etc? These are the ALEC companies that should be most targeted by people who want their government back.

There are other companies that buy our government, steal our democracy in other ways” These companies steal our government away from the sound of our voices… Their products pollute more than the big oil companies pollute” Every year, they kill more people than cancer kills. They are the top 20 defense contractors” The war-for-hire-mongers. The damage they do most is killing both our own troops, killing foreign nationals and keeping the country in a continuous state of war.

We the People …. 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 the earth. Abraham Lincoln wrote these words and spoke them at the Gettysburg address. The words seem almost meaningless in 2012. … Read More

Of Bedrooms and Boardrooms

By Robert Reich

The 2012 election should be about what’s going on in America’s boardrooms, but Republicans would rather it be about America’s bedrooms.

Mitt Romney says he’s against same-sex marriage; President Obama just announced his support. North Carolina voters have approved a Republican-proposed amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. Minnesota voters will be considering a similar amendment in November. Republicans in Maryland and Washington State are seeking to overturn legislative approval of same-sex marriage there.

Meanwhile, Republicans have introduced over four hundred bills in state legislatures aimed at limiting women’s reproductive rights — banning abortions, requiring women seeking abortions to have invasive ultra-sound tests beforehand, and limiting the use of contraceptives.

The Republican bedroom crowd doesn’t want to talk about the nation’s boardrooms because that’s where most of their campaign money comes from. … Read More

BERTHOUD – Wendell Krause, 89, died Sun. Mar. 18, 2012 at the Pomeroy Care Center in Pomeroy, Iowa. Funeral services were held on Wed. Mar. 21 at Larson Weishaar Funeral Home in Manson, Iowa, with Rev. Mark Galbraith officiating. Wendell’s burial service will be held on Mon. May 14, at 10:00 a.m. at Foothills Memory Gardens north of Longmont.

Wendell Wayne Krause was born on May 25, 1922, at Garwin, Iowa. The son of Floyd and Mabel (Ankrum) Krause, graduating from Garwin High School in 1940. He served in the U.S. Army from 1942 until 1945 as a member of the 363^rd Infantry in Italy. Wendell was united in marriage with Maxine Holt on Sept. 14^, 1945, at Marshalltown, Iowa, and returned to Garwin to farm. He managed lumber companies in Iowa and Loveland, Colorado before his retirement. His wife preceded him in death in 1997. He and Maxine resided near Berthoud, CO between 1978 and 1997. Wendell relocated to Pomeroy, Iowa in 1999. Wendell was a 50-year member of the Masonic Lodge #478, as well as a member of the AmVets.

Among his survivors are his daughters Rebecca (Dennis) Howrey of Pomeroy, Iowa; Patricia Ann Heth of Waterloo, Iowa; Cheryl Jo Krause of Florence, Italy; son Kevin Michael Krause of Steamboat Springs, Colorado; long time companion Darline Behrends and her family in Pomeroy; sister Winona Paustian of Garwin. He was preceded in death by his parents and his wife.

31 GOP Men Don’t Think Domestic Abuse Victims Deserve Protection

by Jessica Pieklo

The Senate finally voted to renew the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) despite months of partisan wrestling over just who was deserving enough to be protected from domestic abuse.

In the end the renewal easily cleared the Senate on a 68-31 vote. 15 Republicans joined all members of the Democratic caucus in voting yes. Notably, the 31 Republicans who voted against renewing VAWA are all men.

The bill now heads to the House where Republicans are working on their own version of the bill. Read More

December 25, 1953 – May 3, 2012

Vicki L. Smith of Berthoud died May 3, 2012 at Swedish Medical Center in Englewood, Colorado. She was 58 years old.

She was born December 25, 1953 in St. Louis, Missouri to Jesse and Wilma Jean (Parker) Starns. Her family moved to Boulder, Colorado where she attended Boulder High School.

On October 9, 1988, she married James Smith in Cheyenne, Wyoming. They lived briefly in Longmont, and then moved to Berthoud.

Vicki was a project manager for IBM for many years, and transferred to AT&T along with her department.

Together Vicki and James loved to travel and enjoyed many vacations to wonderful places. She also enjoyed camping, fishing, boating, motorcycle riding and metal detecting. She was an excellent photographer and loved to take pictures. The love that she had for her puppies was unconditional.

Her parents have preceded her in death.

Vicki is survived by a loving husband, James of Berthoud, daughter Jessica Chisholm of Greenfield, Indiana; son Sebastian “Roy” Hunter of Merritt Island, Florida, step-daughter Jalene Welzig (Jim); sisters Donna Starns and Anna Marie Starns, half-brother Pat Mullen, and grandchildren Nicole “Jessica” Mullen, Casey Welzig (Chelsea), Cassy Welzig, Wyatt Welzig, Grace Welzig, and Faith Welzig.

Visitation 6:00-8:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at Ahlberg Funeral Chapel with family present to greet friends. Cremation will follow viewing at Ahlberg Funeral Chapel and Crematory. Memorial service will be held 2:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 9, at the Ahlberg Funeral Chapel. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions to the National Stroke Association can be sent in care of Ahlberg Funeral Chapel and Crematory, 326 Terry Street, Longmont CO 80501. Visit Ahlberg Chapel to share condolences with the family.

To the Editor

As the host parents of the exchange student who was recently in the news, we would like to offer our sincere gratitude to the community of Berthoud for their tremendous kindness and support. 
Our exchange daughter had been the victim of a very violent attack in Germany several years ago that was never reported.  She re-enacted that crime here in Berthoud as a cry for help. While we all wish that she had found another way to tell us what she needed, we are relieved for her that she is finally going to have a chance to heal from that pain. She has returned to Germany to be with her family. 
We know that she is deeply sorry for any pain or harm she caused this community, and hopefully she will someday be able to express that herself.
 We are grateful to the Berthoud Police Department and the FBI for their professionalism and efforts to help this troubled young woman. We also wish to thank the Berthoud High School staff and student community for their compassion and kindness in a difficult and frightening situation. Berthoud truly is no place for hate.

Jen and Dan Rotar

See:

Berthoud High School foreign exchange student rescinds allegations about ‘hate crime’

Opinion by David Pakman

During Mitt Romney’s campaign for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, he made an interesting comment about pornography. The comment came in Ottumwa, Iowa at the Hotel Ottumwa, where Romney said “I want to make sure every new computer sold in this country after I’m President has installed on it a filter to block all pornography.” This comment is fascinating for a number of reasons, and requires a multi-level analysis to really explore its full absurdity.

First and foremost, Mitt’s comment confirms he really doesn’t know much about computers, but doesn’t let that get in the way of making comments that – at least at that exact moment – seemed politically advantageous. Internet browsers, including Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, as well as internet portals like America Online, have had so called porn filters, also known as parental controls, for years, easily predating 2008. Fundamentally, Mitt had no idea what he was talking about…if he did, he’d know his incredible idea for an invention to save the fabric of this country by controlling nude images was already standard on most computers sold at the time.

Layer two of the analysis brings us back to so-called fiscal conservatism and pro-business politics. Mitt Romney has long touted his business experience as an important reason why he’d make a good President. Of course, it’s not true, and unfortunately there’s no examples of successful American Presidents whose background was “good business guys,” but lack of evidence aside, let’s assume it was true. Mitt Romney, along with much of the modern Republican Party, has made opposing government regulation of private industry a top concern. Republicans try to contrast this with Democratic politicians, who would allegedly put so many restrictions and regulations on businesses that they would singlehandedly destroy their profits.

Of course, what Romney is suggesting is that government should mandate private companies who manufacture computers to develop (remember, Mitt didn’t know it already existed) and install an additional piece of software in order to meet so-called family values instituted by the Republican Party. Did Mitt just not realize this is one of those regulations of how private business should be run that he and his party claim to oppose, or does he think the porn filter is a worthy exception. After all, millions of children’s’ lives were ruined when Janet Jackson’s breast – minus the covered nipple – was exposed during the 2005 Super Bowl Halftime Show.

This brings us to layer three of our analysis of Mitt’s brilliant idea. Many self-described conservatives are displeased that President Obama has not focused more on indecency and swearing on television and in the media, and FCC regulation. This is, of course, predicated on the idea that nudity and foul language is bad for not only children who might overhear or see something, but for society as a whole. Broadcast indecency policy around the world confirms that there should be no such concern, and no such real risk exists, so I’m thrilled President Obama is more or less ignoring the issue of which words are okay to say on television, and instead working on everything from healthcare reform to capturing Osama Bin Laden and starting to create actual jobs – even jobs outside of the “porn filter” industry, believe it or not!

In the end, Mitt’s porn filter idea tells us quite a bit about Republican priorities and double standards. These double standards should disgust you:

• Forcing private oil drilling companies to install the valve that would have prevented the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, another oil spill before it, and potentially many others, was too much government intervention and regulation into private business, but forcing computer companies to create and package a porn filter with the computers they sell is a perfectly appropriate example of government intrusion into business and people’s lives.
• Children’s lives will be ruined if they see Janet Jackson’s breast (not even the nipple, remember), people having sex, or hear a dirty word, but growing up in a time when war is a constant for which we always have more money and corporations can and do use toxic chemicals in everything from children’s food to their toys won’t have any long term effect on their lives – that, Republicans are okay with.

You also might be interested to know that, while the majority of anti-porn, anti-swearing, anti-gay, and other so-called “family values” initiatives stem from Republicans, the interest in much of the material resides in predominantly Republican states. A Men’s Health piece revealed that the top states for “gay sex” internet searches are Mississippi, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Nevada, Texas, and Florida, all heavily conservative states. Even more interestingly, according to an onlinemba.com study a couple of years ago, Utah has the highest online porn subscription rate per thousand broadband users at 5.47.

Certainly it must be only the liberals in those red states who are doing the searches…

David Pakman, host of the internationally syndicated political talk radio and television program, “The David Pakman Show,” writes a monthly column. He can be reached at www.davidpakman.com.

To the Editor:

I am a candidate from South Loveland for the Little Thompson Water District board to serve as a voice for customers, including seniors, on future water policies and rate-setting including the issue of water for fracking purposes if it comes at the expense of other customers or leads to a rise in rates.

Currently I am on the Advisory Board of the Larimer County Office on Aging and “graduated” from Larimer County 101 in 2011, a class run by the county to encourage more informed citizens who would be a resource on local boards. I have a college degree in Economics (Business), a teaching degree (MAT) in American history, and a doctorate in History. I am comfortable with analyzing budgets. 

The last election for the water board was in 2006 election and was decided by fewer than 100 people bothering to vote in a district stretching from County Road 20 in Larimer County to County Road 5 in Weld County and including portions of northern Boulder County. All water customers may vote for any candidate but candidates must live in certain district.

I am in a three-way race in Ward 6.

I am urging readers to vote in person May 8 at the Little ThompsonWater District Office where you drop off your water payment– 835 East Hwy 56, just east of L & M, a mere quarter mile west of the town of Berthoud.

Senator Lundberg is trying to make “political hay” on a non-issue. It is true that approximately 400,000 non-profits lost their status when they did not heed the notices about the need to start submitting annual reports to the IRS. However, as a board member a local non-profit, I know that our treasurer received the notice and found it easy to comply and there was no problem. I continued making the reports after she retired.

Another organization, of which I am a member, did not pay attention to the IRS notice and lost its status. Three years does seem to be an adequate amount of time for compliance, but this organization was one of the 400,000. I assisted in filling out the form for reinstatement and found that while not simple, it was not terribly difficult. The fee for reinstatement was reduced from $400 to $100.

Some of the non-profits that lost their status had ceased to function and needed to be culled from the rolls. Others were not paying attention to their financial business and are now apparently whining about their own mistakes.

The granting of tax benefits to non-profits under article 501c is an important function of the IRS and the agency needs to monitor and regulate the “industry” so that charity really is charity. There have been numerous instances of people taking advantage of the non-profit status for personal gain. I would not agree that the IRS is over-regulating the non-profit groups. The report itself is very easy to do online and it only takes a few minutes.

Senator Lundberg has apparently had some complaints from organizations that lost their status and is now trying to turn this in to an issue of “government overregulation.” I have much more experience in the non-profit world that Kevin Lundberg and will state that strong, efficiently run organizations had no problem with the IRS rules. The others now want Senator Lundberg to bail them out with out having to do the work the rest of us have done.

Lundberg is not looking out for the little guy, he is looking out for Lundberg. Perhaps he should try to do something a bit more useful with his time.

IRS Looks To Make The Non-Profit A Non-Factor
Senator Kevin Lundberg Watches Out For The Little Guy

Loveland, CO., April 27, 2012 – Colorado State Senator and U.S. Congressional Candidate, Kevin Lundberg, has introduced a measure in the Colorado State Senate urging Congress to fix IRS regulations that has revoked the tax-exempt status of a large number of small non-profit charities across the country.

Senator Kevin Lundberg said, “Tens of thousands of non-profits across the country have been put out of business because the IRS changed the rules and didn’t give them proper notice. Congress needs to fix what they have broken.”

Lundberg’s measure urges Congress to fix IRS reporting procedures for small non-profit organizations to ensure that their tax-exempt status would not be unfairly revoked.

Since 2006, over 400,000 non-profit organizations have had their tax-exempt status revoked, many of which because of this poorly executed addition to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

In 2005, a report was issued to Congress by the Panel on the Non-Profit Sector and recommended that small non-profit organizations be required to submit an annual report to the IRS. The panel’s recommendation stated that organizations that do not comply within a reasonable amount of time should have their tax-exempt status suspended.

In 2006, Congress adopted the Pension Protection Act that was based in part on the panel’s recommendations. The act requires that an affected organization’s tax-exempt status “be considered revoked” after failing to file a report for three consecutive years, even though the panel’s recommendation was that the organization’s status only be suspended.

The new and unfamiliar filing regulations were poorly executed and poorly communicated. The IRS claimed that they would send notifications to affected organizations prior to any revocation of their status. The truth is that many were not contacted until after the fact, and in some cases had to simply shut their doors because they were no longer in compliance.

Although it is not unreasonable to expect non-profits to submit such a report, it is only fair that they be given proper notice. And in the case that their tax-exempt status is revoked, they ought to be afforded a simple process to become compliant and regain their prior status.

In a society where government entitlement programs are growing out of control, small non-profits provide a valuable service to their communities and should be allowed to operate without undue regulation from the federal government. It is time to send someone to Washington who will focus on protecting our liberty and our freedom rather than eroding the principles of self-responsibility by over-regulation.

The complete measure Senator Lundberg has introduced can be found at: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/D4605D343E364AAA872579C600650A46?Open&file=SJM003_01.pdf

Colorado State Senator Kevin Lundberg is a candidate for the 2nd Congressional District of Colorado. For more information on Kevin’s campaign visit: http://www.Lundberg2012.com.