Colorado - Ari Armstrong's Free Colorado

Archive for the Colorado Category

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Party 2012: Complete Video

By Ari Armstrong on August 14, 2012

Following is all the video I captured at the Independence Institute’s tenth annual Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms party. See also my previous post and my photographs.

I edited together some video of people shooting clay pigeons along with interviews with various participants.

Jon Caldara explains the purpose of the event. He says, “Freedom is not allowing people to do things that you approve of, freedom is about protecting people’s rights to do things you find distasteful.”

Dave Kopel defends the right to bear arms.

David Martosko of The Daily Caller offered the main talk of the day.

Given that Mitt Romney had just selected Paul Ryan as his running mate, I asked people what they thought about that.

Finally, Constitutional scholar Robert Natelson discusses the likely impact of the upcoming election on the course of the Supreme Court. He also says, “There’s already been a tremendous resurgence of popular understanding of the Constitution.”

This entry is filed under Colorado, Guns and Self-Defense, Nanny State, Supreme Court.

A Conversation with State Senator Nancy Spence

By Ari Armstrong on August 7, 2012

Last week I saw State Senator Nancy Spence at an Independence Institute event. She agreed to sit down for a video interview. Mostly we discussed “public” education and Colorado politics.

Obviously I don’t always agree with Spence—and there are quite a few tough questions I did not ask during this interview—yet I appreciate Spence’s long-standing commitment to Colorado politics. I wish her well as she leaves the legislature and begins new projects.

This entry is filed under Colorado, Education. | 1 Comment

Articles on the Aurora Theater Murders

By Ari Armstrong on August 1, 2012

Here I collect the links to my notes pertaining to the Aurora theater murders, drawn both from this web site and from The Objective Standard.

Yesterday I visited the site of the memorial. See my Creative Commons photos hosted by Picasa. Needless to say, it is a solemn and sad place.

I also uploaded a short video of the memorial to YouTube under Creative Commons.

Incidentally, I was not able to capture clear images of possible signage at the theater, because the police have the area taped off far from the entrance. (Also, there was significant window glare, and my 10x zoom was not nearly adequate.) So I cannot offer definitive answers about that matter.

First, let us not lose sight of who’s at fault or what the perpetrator is: Evil.

In “Keeping Crime Risks in Perspective,” I argue that “it is counterproductive to obsess about crime or to make decisions based on irrational fears about crime.” I point out, “Of the 2.5 million deaths in 2010, around 118,000 were from unintentional injuries, 38,000 were by suicides, and 16,000 were by homicide.” Although we should recognize violent crime as horrific and try to stop it, we should also keep our risks in perspective.

In “Condemn Scapegoating in Aftermath of Atrocities,” I point out the foolishness and injustice of blaming legal abortion, the Batman movies, or the National Rifle Association for the murders.

A couple of my articles pertain to general matters of public safety:

* A Modest Proposal for Theater Security (That Would Actually Work)
I propose that theaters place the following sign prominently near the entrance: “Armed, off-duty police officers who carry their guns into this theater get unlimited complimentary movie entry and concessions. Please see management for details.”

* Civilian Responses to Active Attackers
I interview my father Linn about what regular citizens can do to effectively respond to active attackers.

Several of my posts focus on firearms:

* Thoughts on the Aurora Murders and Armed Citizens
I argue that gun restrictions generally have little impact on criminals, yet they make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals. I specifically address proposals regarding so-called “assault weapons” and the capacity of magazines.

* Guns, the Media, and Contributing Factors to the Aurora Murders
I discuss what it means for something to be a “contributing factor” to a crime, and what, if anything, the government should do about it.

* Notes About the Aurora Murders, Guns, and the Political Aftermath
I discuss gun magazines at greater length, and I address a few other details pertaining to firearms.

* Correcting the Denver Post’s Errors About Guns
I respond to a Denver Post editorial regarding so-called “high capacity magazines.” I also respond to a few other matters concerning the Post‘s coverage of the murders.

Finally, while it is a mistake to strongly tie the murders to the latest Batman film, obviously the two are historically linked. See my initial thoughts about the movie and my longer review of it, “The Dark Knight Rises—And Asks Us to Rise As Well.”

This entry is filed under Colorado, Criminal Justice, Guns and Self-Defense.

Evil

By Ari Armstrong on July 20, 2012

Though the last thing we needed was another reminder, yes, some people are capable of committing horrific evil.

But we are Colorado. We will reach out to our neighbors. We will become a stronger community. We will build our lives and our values and oppose those who hate and destroy human values.

Sorrow quickly gave way to anger as I read the news accounts this morning. The new Batman movie is a global event and, because of that, a global discussion and shared experience. And the killer targeted that event specifically as an intentionally symbolic act of pure nihilism, pure destruction for destruction’s sake.

Undoubtedly we will now hear endless speculation about motives and influences. But, whatever the pretext, the killer chose to commit these atrocities against innocent and defenseless victims. The “reasons” why make no difference; there can be no reasons why, ultimately, except that he chose depravity.

We choose to live.

This entry is filed under Colorado.

Coloradans Lead the Fight for Liberty in Medicine

By Ari Armstrong on June 28, 2012

Yes, I’m disappointed by today’s ObamaCare ruling by the Supreme Court. (You can find my further remarks over at The Objective Standard blog.) I am not terribly surprised by the ruling; John Roberts was merely following today’s common conservative legal theory to the effect that the Supreme Court should do whatever backflips are necessary to jam congressional legislation into the framework of the Constitution. (I’ll have more to say about this later.)

Here, I wanted to first point out that this is hardly the end of the fight, and second thank those Coloradans who have played such an important part in the fight to establish liberty in healthy care.

This is not the time for defeatism, for disillusionment, for pessimism, or for sulking. This is the time to stoke one’s motivation and help rally the lovers of liberty to the cause of freedom in medicine.

I think the Supreme Court erred in its judgment today. But the Supreme Court defines the limits of Congressional action, not its ideal state. Just because the Court allows it, doesn’t mean Congress must enact it.

Now the battle must move to the cultural arena—where it has always been fought at the most fundamental level. In a way, today’s ruling brings a certain clarity to the issue, for who can deny that we face a basic choice between liberty in medicine and government-controlled medicine? Either the individual is in control of his own life, his own health, his own choices, his own body, or the government is.

The fight to bring about liberty and free markets in medicine is just beginning.

And the side of liberty already has tremendous momentum, thanks in large part to the work of scholars and activists here in Colorado. I want to take this opportunity to thank some of them and link to some of their work.

Dave Kopel and Rob Natelson

Legal scholars Kopel (shown in the photo) and Natelson did tremendous work explaining the limits of the “necessary and proper clause.” Notably, the Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare is not permissible under that clause (but rather under Congress’s taxing authority).

Kopel has also written extensively about the implications of ObamaCare, as in an article for the Volokh Conspiracy.

Earlier this year I interviewed Kopel about the mandate.

Paul Hsieh

Radiologist Paul Hsieh cofounded Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. He coauthored an article chronicling the history of government intervention in medicine, and he continually writes blog posts and articles on health policy.

Hsieh wrote an article for today’s PJ Media in which he argues:

Ultimately, the political fight against ObamaCare must be part of a broader fight for limited government that respects our freedoms. The proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as our rights to free speech, property, and contract. Only those who initiate physical force or fraud can violate our rights. A properly limited government protects us from criminals who steal, murder, etc., as well as from foreign aggressors. But it should otherwise leave honest people alone to live peacefully, not deprive us of our freedoms in the name of “universal health care.”

Jill Vecchio

Vecchio, another medical doctor, has delivered numerous talks on health policy. She recorded a multi-part video commentary on ObamaCare.

Linda Gorman

Gorman, an economist with the Independence Institute, has written about health policy for many years. I have benefited enormously from her detailed and technical understanding of health laws and their implications.

Brian Schwartz

Schwartz writes for the Institute’s Patient Power Now blog. He keeps abreast of the latest news related to health care, and he shares this news with the wider community.

Thanks to the amazing work of these scholars, doctors, and activists—and many other Coloradans who have made the case for liberty in medicine—much of the public is aware of the dangers posed by ObamaCare and open to serious discussions about replacing today’s government-controlled health care with a free market.

That is the cause for which we must continue to fight.

This entry is filed under Colorado, Health Care.

Flatirons Liberty On the Rocks Takes Off

By Ari Armstrong on June 21, 2012

Over 40 people attended the June 18 meeting of the new Liberty On the Rocks chapter in the Boulder area. (See my Picasa album.)

Founders of the group, Mike Shelton and Bryan Cutsinger, discuss their goals in a short video:

Brad Beck, founder of Liberty Toastmasters, discussed principles of effective communication.

This entry is filed under Activism, Colorado. | 1 Comment

Search for Missing Friends Brought Out Heroes

By Ari Armstrong on March 8, 2012

The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published February 17 by Grand Junction Free Press.

The Widegren family, with nine children and eight grandchildren ranging in age from a few months to over 40 years, has long been a pillar of the Palisade community, with connections spanning much of the west and beyond. That’s one reason why, when Mark Widegren and his friend and coworker Brian Axe went missing near Price, Utah, dozens of people responded to the emergency, driving and flying in from around the country to meet in Price to help with the search. Family and friends of both men played key roles in the search.

When the young men’s vehicle finally was found on February 5, the news was tragic: their vehicle had crashed down a steep cliff a week previously on Saturday night, and the sheriff’s department deemed the crash “unsurvivable.” Mark and Brian were driving through the treacherous Cottonwood Canyon, off of Nine Mile Canyon, northeast of Price on their way to their base camp. They worked for an energy company there.

The one silver lining to the horrible tragedy was seeing dozens of the men’s family, friends, and coworkers heroically join the search. Todd Widegren, Mark’s oldest brother, told reporters, “These guys were friends and family of a huge, huge number of people. And everybody that is here is here for the love of those guys.”

Because Ari went to school with several of the Widegrens and has long known the family, he too traveled to Price to witness the search (and perhaps in some small way to help with it). In retrospect, the efforts of the searchers pay tribute to the memory of the lost friends. We won’t mention their names here because we don’t want to make anybody feel uncomfortable, but we wanted to describe their valiant efforts to the broader community.

Volunteer ground searchers first discovered the secluded vehicle and hiked to it, giving the family and friends at least the comfort of learning what happened. Obviously the hope had been to find the men alive and assist them. Finally we learned that had been impossible, but the fact that, at the time, we thought they might still be alive made it crucially important to find them as quickly as possible. As terrible as the news turned out to be, at least the news allowed the recovery effort to proceed, and it gave the family and searchers a bit of peace from the constant anxiety and stress of not knowing.

Two young men from Grand Junction first spotted the vehicle by scrambling down a steep, snowy decline and then peering down the face of the cliff. The vehicle had been difficult to see from the air because it was crumpled and it blended into the surrounding rocks. After those men called in the news, another group, consisting of two family friends from Denver and two family members, drove and hiked to the vehicle, again through heavy snow, to check for survivors and help guide the recovery effort.

For several days, other search teams had covered the area extensively by ground and by air. One group of friends and family searched throughout the night with spotlights.

At the Holiday Inn hotel in Price, which was very accommodating to the search parties, others organized the search, verified that everyone returned safely from searching, organized written reports from the searchers, reported to friends elsewhere and to the media, and worked with the local authorities.

Local law enforcement agents helped track down credit card receipts, cell phone data, and security camera footage that helped narrow down the search area. Carbon County Deputy Sheriff Wally Hendricks helped organize the search and bring updates to the family.

Of course the search took money and resources, and many people responded with donations of food or money. One local “cage” fighter even donated his fight purse to the recovery effort and raised additional funds from sponsors.

Plenty of others also helped out. The Abby and Jennifer Recovery Foundation sent representatives from Grand Junction to Price to help. Several Price locals also joined the search with their ATVs and other vehicles. The owner of a small air company paid for the hotel rooms of the searchers. Pizza Hut delivered an order of free pizzas to those involved. (No doubt we’ve inadvertently left some people out.)

When the emergency hit, many people from the Western Slope, Utah, and beyond answered the call. Their efforts are an inspiration and a credit to our communities.

We only wish the final outcome had been the one we had hoped for. Mark and Brian will be deeply missed.

Related:

This entry is filed under Colorado, Grand Junction Free Press.

Manley Defends Campus Concealed Carry

By Ari Armstrong on March 7, 2012

Jim Manley, lead attorney in the suit to overturn the concealed-cary ban at the University of Colorado, discussed the cast last night at CU, Boulder.

Manley said that not only CU but every “public” campus in the state now needs to ensure it does not ban concealed carry. He also pointed out that Colorado’s concealed carry law generally requires permit holders to be over 21 and go through fingerprinting and a background check.

Moreover, he said, Colorado State University has complied with state law for nearly a decade, and that example illustrates that campus concealed carry simply does not generate a problem.

This entry is filed under Colorado, Guns and Self-Defense. | 2 Comments

Would Prop. 103 Let Legislature Spend However It Wants?

By Ari Armstrong on October 6, 2011

A couple days ago “Brian” wrote about Proposition 103, ”The legislature is under no obligation to spend the money on education. Prop 103 is a law, and it is only valid until it is superseded by another law.” I heard a similar claim yesterday from Justin Everett and the hosts of Grassroots Radio on 560 am.

While I think it’s possible that the legislature could try to overwrite Prop. 103 and redirect the funds to other ends, I think that’s very unlikely.

A couple weeks ago I reviewed Prop. 103 and pointed out its language adding the tax hike to the education budget of 2011-12. So, as written, Prop. 103 definitely increases the budget for education. (The budget might have increased anyway, but probably not nearly as much.)

If the legislature tried to spend the Prop. 103 money on other ends, that would undoubtedly draw a legal challenge, though I doubt Colorado’s absurdly biased courts would welcome it. But the political heat for failing to budget in accordance with Prop. 103 would be overwhelming.

I can’t recall who suggested a more plausible alternative: the money could go to shore up the pensions of those working in government “education” (broadly defined). Prop. 103 says nothing about spending the money on actually teaching children.

It’s not like critics of Prop. 103 need to reach for strained arguments about the legislature “spending the money however it wants”; as it is written the measure is terrible.

As my dad and I wrote recently, “Prop. 103. Would Hurt Working Families, Kill Jobs.”

A new paper from the Independence Institute amplifies these concerns:

The higher tax will reduce job opportunities in Colorado. The total loss in jobs from the Prop 103 tax increase is estimated between 7,400 and 11,600. The higher tax will also reduce the tax base, partially offsetting the revenue generated by the tax. Prop. 103 will exacerbate a $1 billion structural deficit in the state budget.

This is an important argument. By further weakening the Colorado economy, Prop. 103 would reduce the amount of taxes flowing into the rest of the budget. So, while education spending would skyrocket, spending elsewhere would fall relative to where it otherwise would have been.

That Prop. 103 would harm the economy is the first major reason to oppose it; the second is that the tax hike would probably have little to no effect on the actual quality of education. (My dad and I review this point as well.) Yes, the money would go to enrich administrators and the teachers’ unions, but would it actually improve kids’ education? We seriously doubt it.

Further enriching the teachers’ unions and entrenching their power is hardly the way to improve education. Instead, we need to move toward free markets to give educators and families the freedom they need to best educate the children in their care.

This entry is filed under Colorado, Taxation. | 1 Comment

Prop. 103. Would Hurt Working Families, Kill Jobs

By Ari Armstrong on September 30, 2011

The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published September 30 by Grand Junction Free Press.

They’re ba-a-ck, and they want to raise your taxes, again. They always do. Yes, it’s “for the children.” It usually is.

But Proposition 103, the tax hike brought to this fall’s ballot by Boulder Democrat Rollie Heath and the teachers’ unions, is really about taking more money out of the pockets of working families to enrich those unions. Throwing more tax dollars at government-run schools hardly would improve the quality of education.

If you really want to help “the children” (and everyone else), you will vote no on the job killer Prop. 103. Taking even more money out of the voluntary economy would only make it harder for working families to put food on the table and afford other necessities.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that the economy remains weak, with unemployment nationally hovering at around nine percent and Colorado not far behind. The mortgage bust and the bipartisan political bungling that followed hit Grand Junction especially hard. Politicians have already burdened the economy with myriad taxes and reams of controls — how much more can it take?

Taking more money from working families for taxes would dry up private-sector jobs. While the cost of the tax hike would depend on the state of the economy, Legislative Council estimates the measure would suck around $2.9 billion out of the voluntary economy by raising sales and income taxes for five years. Think about how many salaries that represents.

Prop. 103 devotes the money to “public education” from preschool through college, taking the 2011-12 budget as the base level. Legislative Council estimates that base at about $4.3 billion (which includes only state funding, not local and federal). Thus, the added taxes would raise state spending by around 12 to 15 percent per year. Of course, how the legislature would adjust education spending absent the tax hike remains anybody’s guess.

Even those who want to raise taxes may question a hike specifically for education. If you think state government should spend relatively more on roads and criminal investigations instead, you may not like Prop. 103 so much. On the other hand, those with particular ideas about how the state should fund education may not see the measure as specific enough.

We think state legislators should prioritize better, cut spending, and lower tax rates so people can keep more of the money they earn. Then people could spend their own money on what they find most important, whether education, a new business, health care, or whatever.

Would spending more tax dollars on education even improve the quality of education? We think not. The Joint Budget Committee notes total Colorado spending on education has jumped from just over $5 billion in 2004-05 to $7.2 billion in 2011-12, a 44 percent increase, while student enrollment has climbed 10 percent. Has education gotten proportionately better over that period? Hardly.

Taking a longer view, Ben DeGrow of the Independence Institute notes, “Since 1970 per-pupil spending in Colorado and the U.S. have more than doubled after counting inflationary changes — even given the real modest freezes and cuts many Colorado K-12 schools have experienced over the past two years.” (Note: Ari has written for the Institute, in one case on a contract basis.)

Coloradans already spend tons of money on education. The NEA recently estimated per-pupil spending here at over $9,500. Education spending already consumes around 37 percent of the state’s total operating budget of $19.6 billion, dwarfing spending for corrections and transportation combined.

What do we get for all that spending? “Adding more tax dollars to K-12 systems on a large scale has no connection to improving academic results,” DeGrow summarizes. As Andrew Coulson reviews for the Cato Institute, as U.S. per-pupil funding has skyrocketed over the last few decades, reading, math, and science scores have virtually flatlined.

Rather than throw more tax dollars at the teachers’ unions and the political cronies they finance, we need to instead find better value for our education dollars. Schools need greater ability to fire dud teachers without incurring union lawsuits. Most districts can get by with fewer administrative paper-shufflers. Schools should stop following the latest expensive fads and get back to teaching the basics.

Over the longer term, we should look at ways to reduce political involvement in education, not expand it. We are heartened by the success of various charter schools throughout the state. Ultimately we’d like to see real choice in education. We prefer universal tax credits over vouchers. Eventually we’d like to see truly free markets emerge in education, with parents, educators, and voluntary charities assuming the basic responsibility for organizing and financing education. Get politicians and bureaucrats out of it.

This fall, though, we face an immediate choice. Should we divert even more money from the hard-pressed voluntary economy to the teachers’ unions, or should we demand greater accountability and better prioritization for the tax dollars we already turn over? Only the latter option comports with economic sanity and your liberty to spend your money as you choose.

This entry is filed under Colorado, Grand Junction Free Press, Taxation.

Prop. 103 and Fungibility

By Ari Armstrong on September 20, 2011

Proposition 103 is the sole state-wide measure, a tax hike, for the November 1 Colorado ballot. I will have more to say about this elsewhere. For now, I want to investigate one particular aspect of the measure; the potential fungibility of funds under it.

Here’s an analogy to introduce the fungibility issue. Let’s say your daughter has $100. She wants to go to a concert, but she doesn’t want to spend the $30 on a ticket. She also wants to buy a $30 book to help her get into college, and she wants to spend the other $70 on a trip to the mall. She comes to you and says, “Mom, I really, REALLY need this $30 book, because it’s really REALLY important for me to get into college. Can, I can I, can I have $30 for the book, please please PLEASE?! I promise I’ll use that $30 only for the book.”

You say sure. So she spends $30 on the book, $30 on a ticket, and $70 at the mall. Otherwise, she would have forgone the concert ticket and spent $100 total. True to her promise, she spent your $30 on the book. But that’s where the fungibility issue comes up: your gift allowed her to divert another $30 to the concert ticket. So even though you officially gave her the money for the book, you might as well have given it to her for the concert ticket. The result is the same.

So the question is, even though Prop. 103 raises taxes “to be spent only to fund public education,” does that really mean it will require the legislature to spend more on education that it would have done otherwise?

The answer is yes. Consider the change to the statutory language, which is the primary thing that matters in court; see page 10 of the Blue Book.(I’d like to thank Carolyn Kampman of the Joint Budget Committee and Chris Ward of the Legislative Council for helping me understand this.)

All revenues raised by the increase in taxes imposed pursuant to this measure… shall be appropriated by the general assembly only for the costs of public education from preschool through twelfth grade and public postsecondary education and shall be in addition to and not a substitute for moneys otherwise appropriated by the general assembly for the costs of public education from preschool through twelfth grade and public postsecondary education the amount of which appropriation shall be not less than the amount appropriated for such purposes for fiscal year 2011-12.

The key line is the last one, which requires that the legislature spend whatever it spends in 2011-12, plus the proceeds of the tax hike. Legislative Council estimates that will be about $515 million the first year and progressively more after that, for a five-year total of $2.9 billion.

The question, though, is what the legislature otherwise would spend on education. If it otherwise would spend (say) $500 million more on education, and the tax hike brings in $600 million, then the legislature has $500 million to devote to other purposes.

Based on my conversations with Kampman and Ward, I conclude it is basically impossible to predict how the legislature otherwise would act, though I confess the intricacies of school finance surpass my mastery. It seems reasonable to assume, though, that Prop. 103 would add substantially to the education budget for the five-year period.

I think Prop. 103 is nevertheless a really horrible idea, but I’ll present the reasoning for that conclusion elsewhere.

This entry is filed under Colorado, Taxation. | 1 Comment

Strauch Clarifies Norton’s Remarks on ‘Too Small’ Jobs Bill

By Ari Armstrong on February 25, 2010

Both the Huffington Post and Colorado Pols have been having fun with Jane Norton’s comment that the Congressional jobs bill “was too small.”

Norton, the Republican frontrunner for the U.S. Senate seat, made the remark in an interview with Fox News yesterday.

I called up Norton’s office while conducting research for an upcoming column I’m writing with my dad for Grand Junction’s Free Press. Nate Strauch, Norton’s Press Secretary, said that what Norton meant was that “the impact was too small, not the price-tag was too small.”

But that implies that she did favor some sort of jobs bill, just one with a larger impact, does it not?

Strauch said “she supported a number of different measures,” such as “suspending the payroll tax for small businesses.” So Norton wants to cut taxes without touching spending levels? That’s not much of a policy.

Does Norton plan to answer the Armstrong Survey at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10? Strauch said there are “a number of surveys in the queue right now and we are working through those.”

Would I be horribly misunderstood if I called Norton’s commitment to a timely response “too small?”

This entry is filed under Colorado, Politics.

Cleve Tidwell: Colorado 2010 Candidate Survey

By Ari Armstrong on February 21, 2010

Cleve Tidwell is a candidate for U.S. Senate. Questions are shown in bold. See the other replies to the survey at http://tinyurl.com/cosurvey10.

SUMMARY

In a Twitter-length reply (140 characters maximum), please state why you are running for political office.

[No answer.]

ECONOMIC ISSUES

* Should the federal or state government spend money in an attempt to “stimulate” the economy? If so, on what sorts of projects?

The government cannot, in any way, spend its way out. Only business creates jobs. Period.

* Should tax dollars be directed toward energy projects, tourism, or any other form of business subsidies?

No. Tax credits or reductions for generating jobs and business for this should be done

* Should state or federal spending (depending on which office you seek) be higher or lower than it is currently?

Dramatically lower; spending frozen (except for emergencies) and deficit *elimination* targeted

* Should the state or federal minimum wage (depending on which office you seek) be repealed, maintained, or increased?

Reduced in order to allow businesses to hire more people and get them back to work

* Should college education be subsidized by tax dollars?

Agree with the principal that in exchange for military service education subsidized, otherwise no.

* Should antitrust law or its enforcement be changed?

Yes

* (Federal-level candidates:) Should Sarbanes-Oxley be repealed?

Yes

SOCIAL AND CHURCH/STATE ISSUES

What do you believe is meant by the “separation of church and state,” and do you endorse it?

This was a Jefferson statement not the first amendment statement it gives us the freedom of religion and gov out
of our person live.

* Should religious institutions receive tax dollars for providing welfare or other faith-based services?

* Should the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design be subsidized by tax dollars?

Federal government has no business in the affairs of peoples beliefs

* Should tax-funded schools establish a period of permitted or required prayer?

Federal government has no business in the affairs of peoples beliefs

* Should government officials promote religiously oriented displays and comments on government property and at government events?

Federal government has no business in the affairs of peoples beliefs

* Do you support gay marriage?

‘Marriage’ is not a domain of federal government.

* If you answered no to the question above, do you support domestic partnerships, civil unions, or comparable legal recognition of gay couples?

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government – personally I do not support it.

* Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children by the same standards as heterosexual couples?

This is a local issue and not one to be decided by the federal government

* Should government never, always, or sometimes mandate parental notification and consent before a minor may legally obtain an abortion, and, if sometimes, under what conditions?