Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

My colleague's daughter married a Mexican and moved to Mexico. Lately she's been writing about the human crises going on there and how it has touched not only their family, but also their friends visiting and their entire community. She is begging us on this side of the border to make it secure so that the mass weaponry train from America to Mexico stops.

In my thoughts on Hickenlooper v. Tancredo's race for the governor, I cannot help but realize there are two sides to being a good neighbor. Knowing one's boundaries and enforcing them aids the good of both sides. If a relationship has become unhealthy, the customs between the parties need to change. This is true in marriage and friendships, why not in international law and state boundaries?

When I was a kid my teachers and family told me not to color outside the boundaries in my coloring book. I have lately heard the current ideal is to allow the child to express himself on the page. But, then, why give him a coloring book with lines and figures? Wouldn't a cheap blank page do just fine?

I have religious friends who are all about "giving a cup of cold water to the stranger in need," "loving foreigners because God loves all humanity"... but, I keep coming back to giving that cup of cold water not being mutually exclusive of giving a citation if violations of civil or criminal laws occur. A new set of clothing can be given by a religious entity to those who are being deported. No problem with the lines there.

Human Rights, as interpreted by law and judges include duties. Law is based on liberty for all, so why do we hold the law suspect when it attempts to hold the thieves of our society responsible for theft?

Loving a stranger, feeding an alien is not the same thing as loving a terrorist and feeding an illegal immigrant. A line must be drawn in our consciences and in our laws and in our governors.

How is it that an entire political atmosphere can hold the conviction that in depleting their values and resources, safety and law, they can somehow save all the immigrants? Yet, how many of us ask a stranger to stay overnight in our own homes? We somehow trust our gut to go slow, before allowing them into our homes while we are sleeping. Most of us lock our doors at night. Why?

Sometimes I think all the hype about Mexican borders and illegal immigration, and human trafficking is a veil to hide the larger threat of international terrorism. At what point do we throw down the gates?

While it is true that Muslims hold to courtesy and hospitality as a core value, if they believe you are a threat to them in their country, they'll cut your throat after you take advantage of their family for a bed and breakfast. Perhaps we should learn something from them. "Being a stranger, and you fed me" or "helping the orphan and widow in their distress" is not the same thing as housing, clothing, enabling criminal conduct. A line must be drawn.

We are a nation that has rationalized killing babies so that they don't have to suffer without love later in life. Yet, we protect illegals on every front. Our education has lacked the daily reading of Asap's Fables.

No security, no liability for anyone, is our creed of "niceties." Last week National Public Radio (NPR) fired news annalist Williams for "compromising the political correctness of his opinions while reporting the national news." When someone who is supposed to be portraying an analysis of current events is fired and brought instantly to the gates of poverty by his own people for not being "nice enough" in his opinions regarding the strange customs becoming prevalent in a matter of personal air travel security, I think we have all our boundaries imploded.

It is one thing to be kind to a stranger and welcome him in. It is another thing to prefer his customs over our own, to allow his faith that includes political Jihad in his holy teachings over our own faith and security. A line must be drawn.

We teach our children and women to "trust your gut" when encountering strangers, and yet we fire people for saying that they are trusting their gut. Crazy thinking these do-gooders have. Strangers come from all over, but cunning criminality overcomes us when we color outside the boundaries. Does anyone know what is at stake this election?

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Dissenters of Tom Tancredo's immigration policies beg us to dislodge him from the momentum for governor's seat. This is really the only social claim they can maintain against him since he has a proven record of solid business success, years of political experience and solid ethical and moral records. But, has anyone stopped to analyze what the Constitution and statutes deem "illegal" immigration?

I wouldn't have believed it, until I read the case law myself, but the theory of equal rights is based upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Equal rights is based on a standard access to rights under the law. What is that standard, you ask? It is the standard of the european pilgrims to America, it is the white man's standard for freedom, for work, for possession of land and practice of religion.

This fact was hard to swallow because it appeared to be discriminatory and non politically correct in itself. It seemed to give the Ku Klux Klan, and right wing selfishness import.

But the more I wrestled with the concept, the more I realized that what the Klan attempts to do is to dislodge the justice maintained in the Fourteenth Amendment, and thereby dislodge equal rights.

The value of the Fourteenth Amendment is that it assured women, aliens, and minorities in America the right to access the courts for redress of their grievances, the same as the white immigrant men who may have only been thinking of themselves when they penned the Declaration of Independence.

So, if aliens, women and minorities have constitutional protection under the present Constitution and Declaration of Independence, how can they be deemed "illegal aliens" within Tom Tancredo's analysis?

Crimes are founded on intentionality. Aliens are only acting illegally if the prosecution can show they intentionally acted against the law. The law itself must contain definitions of the elements of the crime and statutes must contain firm terms defining what is legal or illegal.

Short of being found "illegal" under these terms, the only other redress we have against aliens is a tort. The threshold for accidental aliens, or tortuous aliens taking healthcare services and jobs from Americans must include the fingers pointing back at the American political climate for having allowed the aliens' encroachment all of these years on our soil. After all, we elected the officials who allowed the newcomers, and we elected the mayors, judges and sheriffs that refused to hold and prosecute them. We are all culpable unless we can show that we have defended our boarders by all means possible.

Certainly, children born to aliens have no culpability as to being illegal. No one can prove children intentionally violated immigration laws. Therefore, under the Constitution, and Tom Tancredo's policies there are many perfectly legal aliens in this State and Country.

It is the illegal aliens that Tom Tancredo firmly opposes and intends to take in hand should he become governor. It is the ones who traffic refugees into human slavery. It is the ones who deal drugs. It is the ones who take jobs without application for green cards and citizenship. It is the ones who have been guilty of violent crimes, driving without a license and causing accidents, and those whose religion promotes overtaking our civilization by strategy and terrorism, or they engage in piracy, looting, assault or the taking of their neighbor's property.

What is so harsh about this, Tancredo's core value? It is difficult in some cases where the hierarchy of rights overlap, yes, but that is what the courts are there for. All we need are Supreme Court Justices who uphold the Constitution, and District Court Judges who have read the law and show up for hearings in their jurisdiction.

Tancredo's polices are lawful policies. He seeks the greatest good for everyone, regardless of their opinions of him. Yes, some weirdos support him, but look at the vast support of the rest of the State, wealthy business people as well as rural folk, and many middle classes.

Minorities and aliens need to know that a Governor who reads the Constitution can be persuaded by it as well.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org/

la,lah...Always turns out this way....

While listening to the minutes on the http://www.englewoodcitizens.org/ site, the McCaslin charade about championing the new cat leash law for resident's wayward domestics had me in a fit of tears. Bob's Comments How can the man take himself seriously? Is McCaslin going to run on this Cats-On-Leashes platform?

Then came the discussion on picking up strays and neutering or spading them and letting them go back to their neighborhoods after. "Because of course, they have their purposes catching rodents"... Was that Wayne Oakley?

Jefferson demurred that he was "only concerned about the humane effects of the traps." Jefferson's comments.

Cats are like people in that they cannot reproduce to catch rodents if you sterilize them all...crazy little fact of nature. Is Englewood on a hidden mission to eliminate cats? The nature of cats and dogs are different, is that too obvious to mention?

But, it could be a value for dollar to take your cat's collar off and let the city sterilize it for you. Or, perhaps you are a concerned citizen who believes this secret sterilization is a bizarre budgetary line item in the City's policy expenditures.

After this, Matt Crabtree addressed Council with concerns about the enormity of funds given to Community Development.

Mayor Woodward replied (during Mayor's choice at the end of the meeting) that he is offended that he has to explain himself, and is getting impatient with his feet being held to the fire. I found his comments a little catty. Perhaps he hadn't realized that by this time, Council had switched subjects.

It occurred to me how much better Englewood City Council is for weekend entertainment than any other vice out there. Well, maybe you'd best get a few beers before you sit down.

Because then came District 4's candidate for change, Rick Gillet's, articulate complaint regarding Council Woman Jill Wilson's double duty as a member of the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee as an ethical conflict
1) for taking a seat that a citizen might better serve on,
2) for using undue influence and her power as a City Council woman with inside information flowing both directions,
3) for the public perception of undue influence.

Responding to Mr. Gillet, Mayor Woodward and Councilman Oakley, each stated that yes, they could see how there might possibly be a conflict, but he and Oakley were hesitant to deprive Councilwoman Wilson from her seat as she is their friend and associate and they believe the best of her. Oakley specifically stated that he believed undue influence was not the same thing as abuse of power. After all, Wilson only gets the same singular vote as the next volunteer board member.

What they failed to address was the fact that Council's interests in reporting on citizens for code enforcement (I)nformation or action by way of (S)ervice has trebled in 2008 compared to the 2007 record of Council Requests, and it has doubled in 2009.

The facts show that Wilson's influence has indeed grown in both directions, not only her opinions to the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee, but also directed from the militant power of Counsel against specific addresses and named residents.

When she asked City Attorney, Dan Brotzman, whether she could ethically vote for herself, he advised her that she could do so as long as she didn't believe she would be gaining anything economically from her vote for herself.

Thankfully, Rick Gillet is a candidate for District 4, up for election this November, because he has the courage to go to bat for a more accessible government in Englewood and are up for November Election. When it came down to a vote of the present City Council, Jill was still sitting on both Council and Code Enforcement. Council discussion and vote.

When I reviewed the 16 pages of Council's Requested Actions from 2007 onward, I realized that this Council has not been interested in drug abuse in the City, home foreclosures, increasing services or benefits to the public, or working on creative avenues to fill the storefronts.

Page after page is filled with hundreds of line items of Council members reporting on Citizens for Code Enforcement issues and requesting legal or police action. Perhaps your address is on this list?

As to finances, there is no special line item budget investigation requested, nor is there a request for background on any special funding or increase in staff salaries.

No-one on City Council asked for legal or civil investigation on the boarding house issue they enacted the new statute and ungrandfathered the current law abiding residents according to whim in 2008, nor did they investigate ways to resurrect the Englewood Parade.

Council did succeed in making residents so angry that on 2/11/08, Council requested information about how to provide security for their own council meetings.

On 3/24/08 McCaslin proposed a (S)ervice to "fine citizens without Court appearances," deeming them "Code Violators" without being given a chance to plead and defend themselves, to have a trier of facts in a fair trial. Bob, it is called the right to face your accusers. It is called "due process."

On 04/07/08 Wilson requests (S)ervice on EEF/EMRF Ordinances.

Recently Council members even requested and voted into approval a designated Code Enforcement person to attend to all of their personal complaints, including evenings and weekends.

On Monday evening, Council brought forward their "bucket" for holding new names on their power trip lists. They voted to extend their term limits from two years to three. Now, in November elections, Citizens get to vote on 12 full years of this Council's personal vendettas against them. By that time, they will hold a very full bucket indeed.

Council Member Bob McCaslin provided a motion for Council Bill No. 30, a bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the registered electors of the City of Englewood at the next regularly scheduled municipal election a proposed amendment to Article III, Section 22, “Terms,” of the Englewood Home Rule Charter.

Council Bill no. 30 is a measure to extend the term limits of each council member from 2 terms to 3 terms. This measure was brought forward originally during a Study Session by Bob McCaslin on January 26th.

Are you on City Council's list? Did you get a surprise visit from a Police Officer on or about the 4th of July to warn you not to set off fireworks in the City this year simply because you were on their list from last year? Dum, da da dummmm.

Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com

Good Friday, might not have been so good for "Holly" who got a ticket within the neighborhood of Englewood High School for smoking tobacco.
This was the day that poor Holly fell into the Department of Regulatory Agencies, and she got regulated. The fishbowl has all the elements of a phoenix rising.

A school of police cars barricaded the street, a host of police surrounded and ogled a curb-full of high school beggars. There these suspects sat on their seats for smoking on lunch break.

Read more »