Search Results for: sheriffs

Colorado Sheriffs Debunk “Sanctuary” Fakery

An open letter this week from the County Sheriffs of Colorado attempts to clarify the role and legal responsibility of law enforcement with regard to detaining undocumented immigrants for eventual transfer to federal immigration authorities. Our generally conservative elected county sheriffs in Colorado are clearly taking heat from constituents energized by the President Donald Trump, and want out of the low-information line of fire:

Recently, there has been increased interest in the topic of how local governments work with federal immigration authorities. As Colorado Sheriffs, we’ve received inquiries on how our jails cooperate with Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE.) Some have claimed that Colorado Sheriffs offer sanctuary to illegal immigrants in their custody. Let us clear the air.

Sheriffs hold the rule of law as sacred. We are elected with the authority to enforce the laws of Colorado and to protect the rights guaranteed in the federal and state Constitutions.

Our jails serve two distinct purposes. One is a judicial function, the other is a detention function. Under our judicial function, we hold persons accused of a crime awaiting trial, if a court has not authorized their release. This includes persons taken into custody on warrants issued by a judge or persons arrested by a peace officer under a probable cause arrest. If the court authorizes the arrestee’s release, we must release them…

Outside of legally recognized exigent circumstances, we cannot hold persons in jail at the request of a local police officer or a federal agent. To do so, would violate the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. While Colorado Sheriffs do not have the authority to enforce federal laws, we do work cooperatively with a large variety of federal law enforcement agencies. At times, we participate in federal task forces and other times, we share information on potential federal crimes with those federal law enforcement agencies. This includes sharing information on all arrestees in our jails with the FBI and ICE. This gives them the opportunity to determine which arrestees might also be wanted by federal authorities or who might be in violation of our federal immigration laws.

If federal authorities present us with a warrant or other detainer, signed by a judge or a magistrate, we hold those persons for federal authorities to pick up. However, the courts have ruled that we have no authority to hold arrestees on administrative holds that have not been reviewed and approved by federal judges or magistrates.

Sheriffs have informed ICE that in order to comply with the 4th Amendment, we must get judicially approved holds or warrants. However, at this time, ICE chooses not to do this.

Recently, some have chosen to accuse Sheriffs of providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants, simply because we are complying with the Constitution, as determined by federal courts. This is an absolutely unsubstantiated and ridiculous claim. [Pols emphasis]

We wouldn’t put any bets on the Peter Boyles talk-radio crowd laying off the sheriffs and local governments who they regularly accuse of everything up to and including treason for not keeping undocumented immigrants locked up, but this letter is useful to prove to anyone not already on the fringe of the issue that our local law enforcers are enforcing immigration law to the full extent that it is practicable to do so.

So, you know, enough with the conspiracy theories and stupid bills.

So Long, Sheriffs: Gun Lobby Lawsuit Loses More Steam


Colorado county sheriffs pose for an NRA photo shoot last spring.

An important development last Wednesday in the ongoing legal action by the gun lobby against gun safety legislation passed in Colorado this year, as reported by the Associated Press' Ivan Moreno. Don't let this slip down the Thanksgiving weekend memory hole:

Sheriffs in most of Colorado’s 64 counties filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new regulations violate the Second Amendment. The sheriffs are elected and represent rural, gun-friendly parts of the state.

In her ruling, Krieger said sheriffs still can choose to join the lawsuit in an individual capacity, and they’ll have 14 days to make that decision. But they cannot, as a group, sue the state in their official capacities.

“If individual sheriffs wish to protect individual rights or interests they may do so … however, the sheriffs have confused their individual rights and interests with those of the county sheriff’s office,” Krieger said.

We'll be the first to admit that rounding up a majority of Colorado county sheriffs–generally conservative elected officials who have been boosted for years by pro-gun groups like the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners–to publicly front the opposition to these new gun safety bills was a brilliant public relations move. In Colorado, the huge difference between elected conservative county sheriffs who opposed the new laws for political reasons and appointed police chiefs who generally supported them for practical reasons was lost on the public. Furthermore, some of these county sheriffs, like Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, are in fact distantly on the fringe of the gun safety debate, standing in opposition to all background checks for gun purchases. It's always been our opinion that if the voting public understood the positions held by many of these elected sheriffs, those badges wouldn't count for nearly as much.

And as the Denver Post's Ryan Parker reported on this same ruling, another major component of the fear-based messaging against this year's gun safety bills has been invalidated–again.

(more…)

Suthers Wants To Shut Down The Sheriffs

nramagsheriffs

As the Grand Junction Sentinel's Charles Ashby reports:

The 55 Colorado sheriffs who filed a lawsuit against the state over two new gun-control laws don’t have standing to sue, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said…

“I know the sheriffs are asserting that they have the ability to assert the citizens’ Second Amendment rights, but they haven’t historically asserted other constitutional rights,” Suthers told The Daily Sentinel. “The sheriffs don’t file suits to protect your Fourth Amendment rights, your Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights.” [Pols emphasis]

Still, removing the sheriffs won’t stop the suit from going forward, Suthers said.

“There’s plenty of other (plaintiffs), such as the gun shops, that clearly have standing,” he said.

The lawsuit against the two central pieces of gun safety legislation passed this year, House Bills 1224 and 1229 limiting magazine capacity and requiring background checks for most transfers of firearms, has been publicly fronted by Colorado county sheriffs ever since it was filed. Prior to that, the same county sheriffs very publicly opposed the bills during their debate in the legislature. The Independence Institute, whose research director Dave Kopel is the lead attorney in the lawsuit, has employed the sheriffs and the lawsuit as a fundraising vehicle, presumably with great success. At least one county sheriff, John Cooke of Weld County, has already used this campaign as a springboard to a run for a state senate seat.

An "agreement" a few weeks ago on the enforcement of House Bill 1224's magazine limits, essentially the same terms originally defined by Attorney General John Suthers after the legislation passed, has more or less reduced the scope of the suit to simple Second Amendment constitutionality. Colorado is not the first state to have passed either a magazine capacity limit or universal background checks, and legal experts we've talked to say the chances of this case even being heard by a high court are not all that great. That means the political (see: recalls) and PR value of the suit (see: magazine cover above) is, and always was, its principal reason for existence.

We can't imagine the sheriffs will be pleased if fellow Republican Suthers cuts them out of the action.

Hello, the sheriffs were actually standing with a gun criminal

(Like we said – promoted by Colorado Pols)

On Greeley’s KFKA radio June 7, gun activist Laura Carno asked:

Does [Senate President John Morse] stand by the Colorado Senate Democrats’ tweet that sheriffs, including the Democrats, are standing with criminals for challenging these gun control measures in court?

Host Amy Oliver, who doubles as a staffer for the Independence Institute and is promoted by KFKA as "conservative, intelligent, and sexy," jumped in (@22:30):

We’ve talked about that. They tweeted out, “Sheriffs stand for criminals and against law-abiding citizens.”

Oliver neglected to mention that, in reality, CO Senate Democrats tweeted that pro-gun sheriffs stood “with criminals” because a man who shot a gun at his wife was actually standing (physically with both feet planted) on stage with the Sheriffs, when they announced their lawsuit aiming to overturn new laws banning on magazines holding more than 15 rounds and requiring background checks for most gun purchases and transfers.

(more…)

Here Come The Sheriffs

UPDATE: A photo forwarded to us from today's press conference announcing the lawsuit against Colorado's new gun safety bills, Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute on the right:

Kopel_webster_051713

See the man in the black shirt on the left? That's Clint Webster, a 2010 GOP candidate for House District 24.

What's so special about Clint Webster, you ask? We reported on Mr. Webster as part of a 2010 release of the criminal records of a number of legislative candidates, mostly Republican:

Webster was arrested in 1987 for disturbing the peace, and in 1991 for assault. Webster pleaded guilty to felony assault and menacing. The arrest report obtained from the Jefferson County Sheriff shows that Webster was apprehended after firing two shots from a semi-automatic pistol at his ex-wife. [Pols emphasis] When asked by arresting officers what his intention was when he fired, Webster stated something along the lines that he had warned his wife to stop bothering him and had even threatened to kill her, yet she ‘showed up at his home anyway.’

The Denver Post's editorial board had this to say about Webster's 2010 bid:

Many of the infractions are examples of poor judgment that occurred during candidates' younger years. But some ought to take them out of the running. Take Republican Clint Webster of Lakewood, who is running against Rep. Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, for the House District 24 seat…

Though that charge was dismissed, a more troubling incident arose in 1991. Webster was arrested after threatening to kill his ex-wife and firing two shots at her and another person from a pistol as they drove away from his house.

Here's a video report from FOX 31's Eli Stokols on Webster's 2010 bid:

"I said I was going to shoot, not kill."

Now, what do you suppose Clint Webster, of all people, was doing at this press conference today?

We can't shake the sense of amazement: these same county sheriffs stood before the Colorado legislature this year and testified against Senate Bill 197, a bill to protect victims of domestic violence from partners with guns. Today, they're standing with one of the worst Republican mistakes of the 2010 election season, a man whose biggest claim to fame is having fired shots at his wife?

Hubris, folks. There's no other word to describe it. Original post follows.

(more…)

National gun activist Pratt calls on Colorado sheriffs to arrest federal officials if necessary

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, praised Weld County Sheriff John Cook recently for taking a "very strong stand on what he thinks the limits of the Federal government are."

Speaking to Greeley talk show host Scooter McGee, Pratt said some sheriffs around the country are ready to arrest federal officials if, in the sheriffs' views, they are violating the U.S. Constitution.

PRATT Well, I’m very encouraged by the number of sheriffs that–it’s at least pushing 400 now, that have said– there’s a spectrum. At a minimum, they’re saying they’re not going to cooperate with any unconstitutional gun grabs that the federal government might participate in. And at the other end of the spectrum, sheriffs are saying, “Not only will I not cooperate, but if the Feds are doing something unconstitutional in my county, particularly a gun grab, I’ll put them in jail.” But they’re also addressing other issues where the Feds act unconstitutionally and threaten to incarcerate citizens of their county, the sheriffs are interposing themselves and saying, “If you try to do that, you don’t have authority, and you’re not going to do that in my county, and if you try it, I will arrest you.” This has happened in confrontations with the Forest Service, BLM, the Food and Drug Administration, and of course, the ATF – the gun police.

In a column in the Cortez Journal Monday, Montezuma Country Sheriff Dennis Spruell echoed Pratt's comments, writing that if sheriffs "think a state or federal law contradicts the Constitution, they are under no obligation to enforce it."

It wasn't clear if Pratt thought Cooke would actually arrest federal officials, or if Spruell would arrest them, if necessary to enforce their views of the U.S. Constitution, so I called Cooke and Spruell to find out. 

(more…)

Elected County Sheriffs and High-Stakes Politics Mix Poorly

We talked today about the last-minute desperation on the part of Republicans and their gun-advocate allies to kill some or all of a package of five gun safety bills that won initial passage in the Colorado Senate on Friday. A key tactic employed by Republicans and allies in this debate has been to flood the field with as any dire allegations about what these bills would do as possible, regardless of factuality. The goal being to keep the outrage bubbling harder than can be debunked–assuming the press even has the time or willingness, which they often don't.

As you know, county sheriffs in Colorado are elected officials–in a very many cases in this state, Republican elected officials who are eager for political advancement. This has made them a fast ally of the gun lobby and Republicans tryint to kill these bills, in marked contrast, for example, to appointed urban police chiefs much more inclined to support them. There are other factors in that divide, but this is the principal one.

This weekend, politicized, elected law enforcement converged with the aforementioned political desperation to kill this package of gun safety bills, and the general atmosphere of truthlessness cultivated by gun advocates.

And the results were not pretty. KRDO-TV Colorado Springs:

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa dropped a bombshell over the weekend claiming Colorado Senate Democrats are threatening sheriffs' salaries because sheriffs oppose gun control legislation. But big questions remain about who the threats came from.

Maketa made the allegations Saturday morning on the Jeff Crank Radio Show on KVOR. He said he got an email from a member of the County Sheriffs of Colorado describing a verbal conversation that person had with someone connected to Senate democrats.

"Basically in that email, it said the Senate majority leadership, the Dems, are very upset with your opposition and testimony on the gun bills and they are stating we should reconsider our positions to gain a more favorable light for salary support from the Dems," Maketa said.

In a nutshell: that Senate democrats are delaying a measure to raise sheriffs' salaries because sheriffs are speaking out against gun control…

In a talk-radio setting, something like this coming from a sworn law enforcement officer is going to sound absolutely horrible. El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa's allegation, which he represents as fact even as he throws in that it's second hand information, is pretty nasty. We, and we don't think anybody who reads this blog in either party would condone a quid pro quo arrangement of silence for pay raises, even on an issue we support. That said, things like this probably do happen, and the picture can easily form in the public's imagination.

The only problem? There's no proof of any of it.

(more…)

County Sheriffs Throw Highly Embarrassing Gun Nut Tantrum

weldnugentAP reports via the Durango Herald:

Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith backed off his hard-line stance against gun-law enforcement Thursday after he said he would refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws, including gun laws. He warned universal gun registration would lead the government to “target and prosecute law-abiding Americans who are simply exercising their constitutionally recognized right to keep and bear arms.”

According to the Loveland Reporter-Herald, Smith said later his comments were misunderstood and that he was not trying to determine which new gun laws might be unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, Sheriff John Cooke in neighboring Weld County voiced vehement opposition to President Barack Obama’s sweeping plan to address gun laws. Cooke said he would refuse to enforce any part of it. [Pols emphasis]

“I’m not going to help him in any way. I’m not going to enforce it because it’s unenforceable, and because I don’t have the resources. The federal government doesn’t have the resources,” Cooke told the Greeley Tribune.

On the one hand, what we have here is pretty simple: a relatively few staunchly partisan Republican low-level officeholders who have found a national political debate they can glom on to in their official capacity. There’s little doubt that these public statements from a few county sheriffs are being coordinated by the very well-funded and organized ideological opponents of gun control, every bit as certainly as mayors around the country are organized by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. This in itself is not unusual.

But when you get past that, and realize that these are law enforcement officers in their official capacity arbitrarily declaring what laws they will enforce, you realize that it is actually kind of a problem.

As the AP report continues, Weld County Sheriff John Cooke has settled on his very own highly laissez-faire interpretation of the Second Amendment, whereby everything, blanket statement, President Barack Obama proposed this week to reduce gun violence is unconstitutional. Especially, says Cooke, Obama’s proposal for universal background checks, which would be “a step” toward possibleВ “mandatory gun registration.”

Notwithstanding the fact that universal background checks are not tantamount to universal registration, and even though nobody’s proposing such a law in Colorado, gun registration laws were considered constitutional in the recent Supreme Court of D.C. vs. Heller that outlawed outright bans on guns–and federal courts since Heller have upheld the constitutionality of gun registration laws. In short, registration is not confiscation, and this is doubly silly because no one is even proposing registration. It is an incorrect interpretation of the law, that requires a descent into “slippery slope” irrationality to even get off the ground. To characterize this as irresponsible behavior for any public official can fairly be called an understatement.

And what will Sheriff Cooke do if the state of Colorado, not the evil Obama administration, is the first entity that enacts universal background checks–as seems increasingly likely?

On a more fundamental level, what are we to say about law enforcement officers who arbitrarily declare, based on lowbrow and faulty interpretations of the law, that they won’t enforce the law? What are we to say about law enforcement officers who decide a law is “unenforceable,” based on the stunning insight that people can still break it? As if that wasn’t true of basically every law?

It seems to us these gentlemen might be better suited to a job that does not involve enforcing the law at all.

Sheriffs For Treason

(Wow – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Eight sheriffs from Colorado (one in eight of them) attended the the first convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association in Las Vegas, which was sponsored by organizations including the John Birch Society.  The group basically argues that county sheriffs have a right and duty to take up arms against the United States government because they claim that the federal government doesn’t have the authority that it has exercised in fact, with court approval, from the very outset of our Republic.

Among those in attendance from Colorado were Weld County Sheriff John Cook, Montezuma County Sheriff Dennis Spruell, Montrose County Sheriff Rick Dunlap, El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, and El Paso County Commissioner Peggy Littleton.  

The Colorado delegates, however, disavowed the use of force against federal agents or simply didn’t go there in public comments one way or the other.

The United States Constitution establishes the supremacy of federal law over state law, places the courts in the position of making binding interpretations of the constitution, and defines treason to include taking up arms against the government of the United States.

To be clear, I am not saying that it is treason merely to propose and discuss a political theory under which treason is legitimate, and maybe even a duty of a local official.  Treason is defined on the basis of acts and not words in the United States.  But, to be equally clear, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is an organization of elected and appointed high government officials sworn to uphold the United States Constitution that argues that Sheriffs have a right to engage in acts of treason, and several of the members of this organization have either come extremely close to crossing that line, or have done so.

The organization clamis that: “The sheriff’s position overrides any federal agents or even the arrogant FBI agents who attempt to assume jurisdiction in our cases.”

Elkhart County, Indiana, Sheriff Brad Rogers, Sheriff Tony DeMeo of Nye County, Nevada, and Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming recounted instances in which they threatened to arrest federal government officials for doing their jobs in their counties for reasons consistent with this organization’s ideology.

Today’s front page story in the Denver Post was an important source for this post, but except for one quotation which it quotes itself from the online materials of organization in question, none of the material in this post is quoted from the story.

Sheriffs For Treason

Eight sheriffs from Colorado (one in eight of them) attended the a convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association’s inaugural in Las Vegas sponsored by organizations including the John Birch Society.  The group basically argues that county sheriffs have a right and duty to take up arms against the United States government because they claim that the federal government doesn’t have the authority that it has exercised in fact, with court approval, from the very outset of our Republic.

Among those in attendance from Colorado were Weld County Sheriff John Cook, Montezuma County Sheriff Dennis Spruell, Montrose County Sheriff Rick Dunlap, El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, and El Paso County Commissioner Peggy Littleton.  

The Colorado delegates, however, disavowed the use of force against federal agents or simply didn’t go there in public comments one way or the other.

The United States Constitution establishes the supremacy of federal law over state law, places the courts in the position of making binding interpretations of the constitution, and defines treason to include taking up arms against the government of the United States.

To be clear, I am not saying that it is treason merely to propose and discuss a political theory under which treason is legitimate, and maybe even a duty of a local official.  Treason is defined on the basis of acts and not words in the United States.  But, to be equally clear, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is an organization of elected and appointed high government officials sworn to uphold the United States Constitution that argues that Sheriffs have a right to engage in acts of treason, and several of the members of this organization have either come extremely close to crossing that line, or have done so.

The organization clamis that: “The sheriff’s position overrides any federal agents or even the arrogant FBI agents who attempt to assume jurisdiction in our cases.”

Elkhart County, Indiana, Sheriff Brad Rogers, Sheriff Tony DeMeo of Nye County, Nevada, and Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming recounted instances in which they threatened to arrest federal government officials for doing their jobs in their counties for reasons consistent with this organization’s ideology.

Today’s front page story in the Denver Post was an important source for this post, but except for one quotation which it quotes itself from the online materials of organization in question, none of the material in this post is quoted from the story.

Colorado Week in Review: 4/7/17

Colorado Week in Review: 3/31/17

Colorado Week in Review: 3/24/17

What you can do to fight back this week (February 21st)

We all knew the day would come when President Trump’s destructive agenda for our country began to hurt real people. That is unfortunately starting to happen, as families who have called America home for decades–families with children who know no other home but America–are put in jeopardy across the nation.

Real people like Jeanette Vizguerra, who has been forced to seek sanctuary in a downtown Denver church rather than face separation from her children and the community she has been a part of for years. This holiday weekend, one of several large demonstrations in Denver featured a march from Civic Center Park to the First Unitarian Church where Vizguerra has taken sanctuary. Even in these terrible times, it is the compassion, unity, and dignity afforded to the victims of Trump’s hateful agenda that shines brighter.

You are making a difference. Every protest march, and every letter and phone call is an act not just of resistance but reclamation: of what it means to be an American, and a Coloradan. We are better than Donald Trump and we are proving it before the eyes of the world every day.

If this email was forwarded to you, you can sign up for future event emails here.

Here are opportunities to fight back for the week of February 21st, 2017:


FEATURED EVENT: With or Without You: Town Hall for Senator Gardner

Thousands of Coloradans having been trying for weeks to get the attention of Senator Gardner in a good-faith effort to encourage him to set up a face-to-face town hall, especially during February recess week. The senator has declined so far, and so we’re going to make it as easy as possible for him, we’re organizing the town hall. We will ask our questions in a civil forum among our community neighbors with or without the senator’s presence. He has, however, been invited in good faith and encouraged to attend.

When: Friday, February 24 at 5:30 pm
Where: Byers Middle School, 150 S Pearl St, Denver

Click here to RSVP.


Broomfield Oil and Gas Public Forum

The city and county of Broomfield is considering a proposal to allow dozens of new oil wells within the city boundaries. Show up to stand up for our neighborhoods and keep heavy industry away from schools and homes.

When: Tuesday, February 21st at 6:00 – 10:00 pm
Where: 1STBANK Center, 11450 Broomfield Ln, Broomfield

Click here to RSVP.


Aurora Lawmakers Town Hall

Join Senator Daniel Kagan (Senate District 26), Senator Nancy Todd (Senate District 28), and Rep. Jovan Melton (House District 41) for a town hall next Tuesday, February 21st, at 6:30 PM at the Heather Gardens Clubhouse. They will be joined by speakers from the AARP and Law Enforcement to discuss access to Medicare and avoiding Identity theft and common fraud schemes.

When: Tuesday, February 21st at 6:30 pm
Where: Heather Gardens Clubhouse, 2888 S Heather Gardens Way, Aurora

Click here to RSVP.


“Safety for All” Rally

Denver Deputy Sheriffs, faith leaders, and criminal justice reform advocates are joining together in a unification rally calling for immediate action by Mayor Michael Hancock, Public Safety Director Stephanie O’Malley and Sheriff Patrick Firman to resolve Denver’s jail overcrowding and safety crisis. Organizers call on the Mayor to immediately convene a working group comprised of community advocates, deputy sheriffs, public officials and faith leaders to address escalating jail overcrowding and assault issues.

When: Wednesday, February 22nd at 1:30 pm
Where: Denver Detention Center, 490 W Colfax Ave, Denver

Click here to RSVP.


We Don’t Want SB90 Back in Colorado Press Conference/ No Queremos SB90 Otra Vez En Colorado Conferencia de Prensa

Next week we face one of the most anti-immigrant bills of the past decade, and we need your voice to kill this legislation. It is not enough for us to simply win enough votes, we must use this as an opportunity to condemn bigotry and xenophobia across our state. This is our moment to control the narrative, lifting up the voices of the immigrant community.

When: Wednesday, February 22nd at 1:30 – 4:30 pm
Where: Colorado State Capitol, 200 E Colfax Ave, Denver

Click here to RSVP.


No Alt-Right at The Hyatt

Turning Point USA is the neo-fascist group that brought Milo Yiannopoulos to CU Boulder last month and they plan to host the western mountain regional summit at the Hyatt in March. They are now aiming at spreading their recruiting efforts through colleges in our region and we will not sit idly by while these groups mainstream themselves in Colorado and beyond.

When: Wednesday, February 22nd at 6:00 – 8:00 pm
Where: Grand Hyatt Denver Downtown, 1750 Welton Street, Denver

Click here to RSVP.


2017 Health Care Day of Action

Health Care Day of Action is an opportunity for consumers and advocates from all over Colorado to discuss important health policy issues and engage with legislators on current health policy. There’s a lot going on in Colorado and in Congress affecting health care. Come join us and make your voice heard on health care issues important to you! We are charging a small fee this year to help cover the costs of this event and better ensure this day is as effective as it can be. However, we do not want funds to prevent you from attending this advocacy day. Scholarships may be available. If you need one please email Adam Fox at afox@cohealthinitiative.org.

When: Thursday, February 23rd at 8:00 am – 1:00 pm
Where: First Baptist Church of Denver, 1373 Grant St (across from the state capitol)

Click here to RSVP.


Protect Our Healthcare Rally – Denver

Alright Colorado, it’s time to rally once again for ourselves and each other. You’re saving your future Saturday’s, right? Our consistent, successfully peaceful protesting is getting under the Administration’s skin. We are sparking change and making our voices heard across the state, nation and world. Let’s once again display our voices and opinions loud and clear. Our health matters. Our happiness matters. Our safety matters.

When: Saturday, February 25 at 12:00 pm – 3:00 pm
Where: Denver’s Civic Center Park, Colfax and Bannock, Denver

Click here to RSVP.


Protect Our Healthcare Rally – Colorado Springs

In response to the call from Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer, the Colorado Springs community is mobilizing to demonstrate our fervent opposition to attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. We also rally to show our support for expanding Medicaid so that all can have access to the healthcare they need at the lowest cost possible.

When: Saturday, February 25 at 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Where: Acacia Park, 15 E. Platte Ave. (Tejon & Bijou Sts), Colorado Springs

Click here to RSVP.


Protest ICE Mass Deportations

hundreds of people have been removed from their homes and jobs and placed in ICE detention centers across the nation. This protest will be outside the main ICE detention center for the Denver Metro area. Bring signs, megaphones, US flags, origin country flags, anything you can think of that will be a show of peaceful force at those choosing to subject one of the most marginalized and vibrant parts of our society.

When: Saturday, February 25 at 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm
Where: ICE Detention Center, 3130 Oakland St, Aurora

Click here to RSVP.


Being Black in #Boulder: A Community Conversation

A FREE community conversation about the experiences of people of color in our “fair” city, in particular, the experiences of black people.

When: Saturday, February 25 at 9:10 pm
Where: square product theatre, 2500 47th St., Unit 10, Boulder

Click here to RSVP.


As always, I cannot thank you enough for everything you are doing to fight back against the Trump administration and the far right in Colorado. While we can’t stop everything that is happening, we can show the world that it’s not happening in our name. Donald Trump does not speak for Coloradans. Trump’s values are not our values. Our values, and our communities, will outlast Trump.

And history will record that you were on the right side.

Get More Smarter on Friday (February 10)

Valentine’s Day is on Tuesday; you don’t have to panic just yet. It’s time to Get More Smarter with Colorado Pols. If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example). If you are more of a visual learner, check out The Get More Smarter Show.

TOP OF MIND TODAY…

Treason. That’s the story today and probably for a good deal of time in the near future, after the Washington Post reported late Thursday that National Security Advisor Michael Flynn may have violated the Logan Act by illegally negotiating with a foreign government (in this case, Russia). Vice President Mike Pence might have gotten burned here as well.

 

► President Trump has rejected Rex Tillerson’s choice to be his right hand at the State Department because Elliott Abrams once said some things that weren’t very nice about Trump. From CNN:

President Donald Trump met with Abrams and the sources said that the meeting went well but when the President learned that Abrams had criticized him during the campaign, the President nixed Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State, according to the sources.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson tried to convince Trump to offer the job to Abrams despite the criticism because he felt he needed Abrams’ experience.

Republican sources also say White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Senior Adviser Jared Kushner also strongly supported Abrams, and tried to convince the President to reconsider.

“This is a loss for the State Department and the country and for that matter for the President,” said one Republican source.

 

► Another federal court has rejected President Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban, and the big orange guy is not pleased.

 

Get even more smarter after the jump… (more…)