Pigs, Swine Flu, Paris Hilton and ignorance

Had me one of those great Marco's Hot Dogs (southeast corner of Main and 17th) last night, not sure if it was pork or not - but I'm willing to bet the bacon it's wrapped in is.

But along with the cast of ignorant's, I found this gem about Paris Hilton, the great diva of intelligence: from http://thesop.org/index.php?article=16043
---------------------------------------
"While the rest of America is freaking out about the swine flu outbreak, Paris Hilton has been happily living her life without any concern about the illness. When paps asked Miss P is she had heard about the swine flu she said she doesn't eat pork."

Reporters know not to ask Paris Hilton her views on geopolitics, global warming or Obama`s economic plan. To spare the clueless Hilton any embarrassment the press only asks her opinion about pop culture matters or current events. If a media personality asks Hilton which is her favorite Jonas brother, he will be on safe ground.

The Swine flu outbreak has been all over the news, it's all people are talking about at home and at work. Paris Hilton was oblivious about the swine flu, she has more important things on her mind like deciding whether she should flash her breasts or her nether regions.

Everyone with two brain cells that they can rub together knows that you don't get swine flu by eating pork products, it's spread by human to human contact.

Good Lord I hope Paris Hilton doesn't catch the swine flu and dies -- entertainment journalists would be lost without her.
------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, people actually listen to this serial doofis, and others like her. So now the pork and beef industry are taking a hit based on uneducated and ignorant comments like these. And when the third-world banana republic dictators, and the sycophants here that are more than happy to repeat their swill, say, like Sean Penn for starters, start going after the pork industry, people suffer.

And when they go after "free markets" and that our government could handle this situation better if only it ran the medical industry - nevermind the abject failure in Great Britain and Canada - where is the government turning? To its stockpile of Tamiflu and Relenza. Who makes that, a government entity? Nope. That would be those evil pharmaceutical companies Roche and GlaxoSmithKline, respectively.

But don't let little things like facts get in the way, not when you could learn oh so much more by living in Fantasyland and getting your news and education from a staff of comedy writers, failed sportscasters, or propaganda peddlers.

Is ignorance really bliss? Just wondering.

(Photo source: MyTeeSpot.com)

Surprise: Airplanes and wildlife don’t mix well

One would assume the obvious that interaction between wildlife and airplanes can be a dangerous thing. But you wouldn’t know that in Longmont, Colorado where they are about to try something that from all reports no other airport has attempted.

...rest of article at Examiner.Com

Longmont and Thistle see "the light"

The Times-Call ran a story on April 22 by Tony Kindelspire with the following headline: “Thistle corrects $38 million error, Blog post brought nonprofit’s mistake to light of city”. It’s worth reading, including the comments and further questions in the comment section.

I’m glad Thistle and the City of Longmont were more responsive after my initial questions and subsequent story, but they really should’ve been right off the bat. Why does it take public pressure and an outside, non-Longmont staffer to get the story straight from them? I’ve heard second hand how Thistle reacted to these questions, and know first hand how the city reacted, and I was not impressed. What it takes to get the truth of the matter from these entities should bother citizens.

Turn of events
First, an Open Records request was made, which was denied, followed by questions of why. Then Thistles records were requested directly from them, they said they were going to use the full 30 days allowed for them to respond. When requested in person (which means they must provide them immediately or within the same day) they said they were filing an extension with the IRS, and now have until May 15th. Meanwhile, at the City level, the dodging at two different offices did not instill confidence. I asked the question if City Council could “declassify” this document (the audit) or make it non-confidential so the public could see it. The response I got was “As City Attorney, I cannot give legal advice to third parties.” City Council is a third party? I wasn’t requesting or in need of legal advice myself.

Fishy financials
But now, the negative $23 million has morphed in to a positive $15 million, that’s quite a swing, and quite a mistake. As of this writing the original document showing the negative number remains on the Secretary of State’s website, and now there is an amended one. This was filed back in September 2008 which was when their fiscal year ended. The annual financial statement is what needs to be looked in to, and with Thistle saying they filed an extension with the IRS effective April 15th makes one wonder if they’re confusing their year end report with their tax documents. Unless of course they secured $38 million in the last 6 months, which seems impossible to believe with the economy the way it is. Also, consider the information at this link from the year before when they showed a net loss of $33,514 and a fund balance of negative $31,910.

City and Thistle stumble
The Times-Call story said “The city hired its own outside accountant to review Thistle’s financial statements, according to city finance director Jim Golden.” So this was not a salaried city staff employee, which should have made this document even more open to the public.

Also in the story: “The information posted was inaccurate, and I didn’t oversee it as well as I should have,” (Thistle CEO Mary) Roosevelt said Tuesday. “And when I became aware of it, we corrected it immediately.” This “inaccurate” report was filed over 6 months ago. This is not a recent development, although Ms. Roosevelt’s knowledge of it is. That in itself should pose some questions about this organization: If you’re involved in a project that will get public scrutiny, especially the kinds of questions like “can you deliver on a project”, when you’re asking for the City of Longmont to fork over money and land exceeding $9 million - would you be totally unaware of a $38 million dollar error with the Secretary of State?

And city staff should question why when asked for information like this that they initially resorted to dodging and finding reasons not to answer the question. They knew they hired an outside source to look in to Thistle, that should have ended the Open Records debate right there. They should have known Thistle filed the same report with the city’s housing authority, also making it open to the public.

All that ends well(?)
If Thistle’s financials are sound and they can be counted on to complete the proposed project, great. I hope the situation is not as fishy as it still appears and we’re not left holding the bag if things go bad. This is not about Downtown, work-force housing, or mixed used development – although I’m sure some readers incorrectly came to that conclusion with this story. It’s about fairness (think Panattoni), transparency (Thistle and the City’s failure at it), learning from past mistakes (previous discontinued project and FasTracks situation) – and not having to have to say in a few years “how did we miss the warning signs?”

No excuses.

What is the City of Longmont hiding?

The City of Longmont is hiding something from its citizens to protect a “favored” client: Thistle Community Housing, who has proposed to partner with the Longmont Downtown Development Authority (LDDA) on a mixed-use project in downtown Longmont . The City Council needs to explain why it’s considering giving millions in taxpayer dollars to a non-profit developer with potentially serious financial problems. And the city’s financial director needs to explain why he’s keeping this developer’s financial problems a secret.

Thistle wants $9 million from the city
According to a March 26 Times-Call story, LDDA wanted more financial information from Thistle before moving forward with their project. The article stated, “Under the tentative agreement, the LDDA would put up $5.5 million out of its tax increment financing fund and the city would donate the land — valued last year at about $2 million — and would waive about $800,000 in development fees.” And a “$752,000 financing gap that one side or the other must fill”. According to my math, that’s $9,052,000!

City’s Secret Audit
I received an anonymous tip that the City of Longmont did an audit of Thistle, and that the financial audit revealed serious problems. Although LDDA board members were able to see the audit, no one could keep a copy because Thistle asked the Longmont Finance Director Jim Golden to keep the document’s findings a secret.

Now the city is denying Open Records requests to release this information. Thistle is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. How many of you know what that is? I did a random poll of people, none were attorneys, but all knew what a 501(c)(3) was: a group that you can give contributions to and write it off on your taxes. Just about every aspect of these types of organizations is supposed to be open to public scrutiny.

IRS Code mandates Thistle disclose its financial records
When I asked the Longmont City Attorney Eugene Mei about this, his response was: “I am unaware of Thistle's corporate status, or the law pertaining to 501(C)3 entities.” Let me help out here. At the following link http://www.990online.com/fedlaws.html there is an explanation of this part of the IRS code. Here are some relevant highlights:

26 USC 6104(d). Public Inspection of Certain Annual Returns and Applications for Exemption.
(1) In general.--In the case of an organization described in subsection (c) or (d) of section 501 --
(A) a copy of-- (i) the annual return filed under section 6033 (relating to returns by exempt organizations) by such organization, and
(ii) (refers to exemptions, no exemption has been requested)
(B) upon request of an individual made at such principal office or such a regional or district office, a copy of such annual return and exempt status application materials shall be provided to such individual without charge other than a reasonable fee for any reproduction and mailing costs.
The request described in subparagraph (B) must be made in person or in writing. If such request is made in person, such copy shall be provided immediately and, if made in writing, shall be provided within 30 days.

State Records show Thistle $23.5 million in the hole
Thistle’s records, by federal law, are not confidential. Why is Longmont treating it as such? Here’s where it gets interesting, and the point of this story: Thistle did file a short preliminary report with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office, as it is required to do. The numbers are troubling, which I’d guess is why the LDDA wanted more financial information and the city did an audit on Thistle. According to this Secretary of State link, for the year ending 9/30/2008 , Thistle had expenses that outpaced revenues by over $4 million, and an End of Year balance of -$23,535,929. Those are both negative numbers. What hasn’t been released yet is the full report describing the sources of revenue, where the expenses went to, and why they were nearly triple the revenue coming in.

What is in the city audit Thistle doesn’t want the public to know?
Now maybe there is a good explanation for this and the numbers could just reveal what is happening to many non-profits during these tough financial times. But these poor numbers should make the public very curious about what the city’s independent audit revealed. The numbers published online by Thistle were bad enough. What is it that the city found that makes Thistle demand that the findings remain a secret?

If you’ll recall, 2 years ago a similar downtown project was discontinued after it was revealed there was a $9 million “financial gap”. And of course we know about the bait and switch of FasTracks and how the price continues to go up and the construction gets further and further away. Regardless of your opinion about this project and this organization, we need to make sure something similar doesn’t happen partnering up with Thistle.

Some council members are playing favorites with developers
Some members of this council stalled Panattoni’s request to move forward with the redeveloping the Twin Peaks Mall, and their emboldened city mouthpieces have smeared Panattoni, a company with a proven record. Look at Harvest Junction and the news releases featuring new stores and even a new hotel, as well as their plans for a new theater and their overall vision for the mall (no, I’m not paid or asked by anyone to say the above).

But when members of this council favor (Thistle) in an area they’d prefer to focus on (Downtown), it gets completely different treatment, even if they may not be financially sound. Something’s rotten here, and the involvement of those involved, including certain members of city council and city staff, should be held accountable. And preferably before this project even gets close to reality.

Go to the LDDA board meeting on Wednesday and ask some good questions
The LDDA will be holding a meeting this Wednesday April 22 at 528 Main Street at 4:15 p.m. If you are concerned about this issue, show up and ask questions, like: Can Thistle really come up with the money to fund this project, or not? Is the city going to be left holding the bag if Thistle goes belly up? Is Thistle using taxpayer money to get itself out of a financial jam? Ask the council members who were on the Technical Review Committee (TRC) that recommended this project if they are aware of this financial information? The council liaison is Karen Benker (303)774-7745 karenbenkerlg@earthlink.net and the staff liaison is Finance Director Jim Golden (who originally denied the Open Records request) (303)651-8629 jim.golden@ci.longmont.co.us

A dark cloud is going to remain over this project unless Longmont lives up to its promise of open and honest government.
(Picture source: City of Longmont government website)

Now Pommer is taking possibly illegal contributions?

The fun never seems to stop with Representative John “Jack” Pommer and campaign finance laws. One might ask why I’m on Part 3 of this saga, good question. If the paper that covers most of his district (that would be the Times-Call) was doing its job and covering it as it should, I wouldn’t have to bother. But it’s not, and I don’t understand why. This isn’t opinion; it’s fact, it’s news.

It was bad enough when he was clearly in violation of late or no reporting owing $20,000 (found here) and then finally paid the fines, but not all of them (found here). The only people who seemed to notice or care where his apologists who saw something inspirational about an elected official caught cheating. Once it got more visibility and hits at Examiner.Com, they became truly unhinged.

Here’s some info for those that don’t know, although I’ve said it repeatedly: I was the original Longmont Examiner and part of the original class of Examiners, which now number over 1,600 nationwide. Last year my wife took over that job as I no longer had time for it, and has been getting way more traffic than I ever did. She was exactly what they were looking for, and is consistently ranked in the top tier in her category. Quite a feat for someone who writes about a little place called Longmont.

She made no secret of who she was married to (although I don’t see how that really matters) through her bio and a profile of what I do. Another point I made publicly was how she was taking over the majority role in our Voter Registration Drive (VRD) called Vote! Longmont, and has written and spoken publicly about it. This Pommer issue was right up her alley as she had just addressed this at a Longmont City Council meeting about a related subject. She is more than capable to speak to these issues and doesn’t need me or anyone else as a “source”. Nor does she need a disclaimer any time she writes who her significant other is. It’s idiocy that this even has to be explained, right?

See, we are what I like to call (I’ll speak slowly) a “team”. We usually investigate and write about different things, but sometimes they cross, like this Pommer story did. I even warned her of the nutjobs that would come after her over what was a pretty fair treatment of Mr. Pommer – way more kind than I was. And they didn’t disappoint, right on cue. Nevermind that every part of the story was true, they just couldn’t have this kind of coverage, and the messengers must be attacked as “pushing an agenda based on lies and false objectivity.” And this was after it was reported Mr. Pommer admitted his mistake. But that doesn’t matter.

Well, like the beginning of this article says, Mr. Pommer might have more troubles. This according to Face The State (yes, that’s a source, which now makes me a source?): “Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, has since filed another late report. The latest document is raising eyebrows because it contains more than $5,000 in lobbyist contributions that may be illegal.”

“On the April 16 report, Pommer lists campaign contributions from registered lobbyists and special interest groups made on February 5. The date is significant, as it falls exactly a month into the legislative session. Under Colorado campaign finance law, it is illegal for lobbyists or special interest groups that lobby to give or solicit money for the campaigns of state office-holders while the legislature is in session.

"The way the law reads, it says lobbyists shall not give," said Rich Coolidge, spokesman for the Secretary of State. "The burden falls on the lobbyist."

“Lobbyist contributions came from Jane Urschel of the Colorado Association of School Boards and consultant Thomas Shilling, as well as the Colorado Professional Firefighters, the Colorado Livestock Association, the Qwest Employees Political Action Committee, and the Boulder Valley Education Association. The total contributions from these six entities total $5150.”

“While the possibility exists that Pommer may have received the contributions prior to the start of the legislative session, state law requires that candidates report the contributions were they are received, not when they are deposited.” (emphasis added)
----------------------------------------------------
Here's a heads-up (you obviously saw this coming), I wouldn't be surprised if the Longmont Examiner (full disclosure: that's my wife) covers this in more detail as it's as much or more up her alley than mine. Apologies to all you normal, common-sensical people for wasting your time having to explain the obvious. Others apparently require it.

One of the biggest scandals in our midst

As suggested in the Longmont Times-Call’s call-in, one way to solve the prairie dog problem at Longmont’s Vance Brand Municipal Airport without exterminating them might be to trap them and see how many of the caring people who show up at these public hearings step forward to take them home to keep in their own backyards.

But because these cute little rodents are known carriers of the dreaded bubonic plague through infestation of fleas, that’s not a good idea. And due to their tunneling ability, of course, building fences and putting up plastic barriers to control them are usually a waste of time and money. Prairie dogs not only attract coyotes, which feed on them, but share their burrows with rattlesnakes.

So what can be done to negate their deleterious effect on properties such as public golf courses, park lawns, public airports and the like? You don’t see prairie dog burrows next to DIA runways, do you, or on the County Courthouse lawn.

Relocation is problematic if not impossible, and public officials must share the blame for neglecting this humane option. While it is true that mankind is encroaching on their habitat, it is also true that Boulder County has accumulated almost 94,000 acres of open space (the city of Longmont also owns hundreds of acres) without setting aside any part of it for relocating and accommodating these unwanted rodents. This is a public scandal in itself, a governmental flaw that the press simply ignores.

Early-on, metro-area counties tried exporting their prairie dogs to rural counties and got away with it for a while – until farmers and ranchers finally rose up and said no, we already have too many and we do not want yours too. Not only do these rapidly multiplying rodents feed on cash crops, they destroy scarce ground-covering by pulling grass out by the roots when they feed (much like grazing sheep do, a practice that triggered early Colorado settlers to gunfights between cattlemen and sheepmen).

There are places for these eco-important rodents to exist in peace in Boulder County, and I think people who hammer officials such as those at Longmont’s airport who find that they do not have much choice except extermination need to take their harassing complaints directly to the Boulder County Commissioners and the Longmont City Council, whose members do have the power and authority to set aside some open space land to mitigate this aggravating problem. Fair enough?
P.

Obamboozled?

It's not like seeing the leader of the Free World going around making a mockery of the office is something I revel in, no matter who it is. It's also not like there was such a terrific alternative. But it is interesting to see The One break one promise after another to those bamboozled into voting for him. Most importantly, it's amusing to make fun of it and those that fell for it.

Here's what some people just don't get: let's say your candidate loses, whether it's on the national or local level. First mistake is "your candidate", like I said before, it's not worth it to get too attached. Second mistake is when the sore winners who think things now must really stink in your collective lives and you must now accept their way or the highway. You surely recall the gloating, even The One's smarmy "I won" comment.

Here's what they miss: Personally, our traffic (and the money it brings) and fodder to cover has skyrocketed since the '07 election of the new abysmal council members here locally and the ineptitude on the national scale. Times couldn't be better, sure can't say the same for the ones who supposedly "won". Noticed how they've actually become more angry and caustic, if that was even possible? Again, amusement is the key there, too.

With all there is to cover, as good as times could be, there's not enough time in the day to do it all. It's not as if there wasn't plenty to cover in my podcasts, there was and still is. Just don't have the time. I've had requests to restart the podcast, and downloads are still humming along even though I haven't done one since December. The written word is getting more hits than ever with a growing cast of contributors. So the demand is there, and every day our local and national leaders embarrass themselves, that demand only goes up.

Which brings us back to The One's latest broken promise: denial of habeas corpus for terrorists, or if you prefer enemy non-combatants. Actually, I believe terrorism isn't an accepted word any longer. According to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano it's called "man-caused disasters." It's okay Obama-voters, you can admit this is really, really lame, yet humorous. But back to the habeas corpus issue.

Glenn Greenwald wrote something over at Salon.Com covering this far better (and with more time than I have) that is worth reading. It has past quotes and broken promises galore. Here's an Obama quote referring to the Boudemiene ruling: "The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."

And then there's this one, while on the Senate floor: "But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence." And, "But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe."

This last quote is from Mr. Greenwald himself, figured I'd just leave it the way it is as it says it all: "I'm not searching for ways to criticize Obama. I wish I could be writing paeans celebrating the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law. But these actions -- these contradictions between what he said and what he is doing, the embrace of the very powers that caused so much anger towards Bush/Cheney -- are so blatant, so transparent, so extreme, that the only way to avoid noticing them is to purposely shut your eyes as tightly as possible and resolve that you don't want to see it, or that you're so convinced of his intrinsic Goodness that you'll just believe that even when it seems like he's doing bad things, he must really be doing them for the Good. If there was any unanimous progressive consensus over the last eight years, it was that the President does not have the power to kidnap people, ship them far away, and then imprison them indefinitely in a cage without due process. Has that progressive consensus changed as of January 20, 2009? I think we're going to find out."

Go ahead Obama-voters, defend this, remember when you do you are defending Bush policies here. And it's not a matter of whether or not I or anyone else agrees with what his administration is doing in regards to this issue. For me and I'm sure plenty of others it's the dishonesty and pandering some people will do to get elected. And the people who fall for it. And now, the people who will defend it. Good little lemmings and locksteppers.

You know, sometimes it's just too easy.

Appointing pawns and puppets

It hasn't gone unnoticed that the liberal Bloc of Four on Longmont City Council has made a number of pure agenda-driven city board appointments since last December, all by four yea votes from the Bloc contrasted to three dissenting votes from the other council members. One of these appointees was a pesty animal rights activist known as Prairie Dog Woman. Apparently these partisan shenanigans from progressive-controlled city councils are nothing new to Boulder County, as described in the commentary below by former Boulder mayor Bob Greenlee.
--------------------------------------------------------------
From the Boulder Daily Camera:

Greenlee: Their way or the highway
Sunday, April 5, 2009

Boulder's City Council is consumed with an overwhelming desire to exercise ultimate control over nearly everything. When it comes to selecting citizens to serve on its many boards and commissions there's apparently little room for dissent. Council recently rejected all six candidates for an open seat on the city's Board of Zoning Adjustment with councilmember Macon Cowles suggesting that all the applicants had direct ties to the development community and might "unbalance" the board. Such unbalanced hyperbole came despite the fact that the city's own Web site says applicants "must be qualified by experience and training to act upon matters relating to building constructions."

The only plausible explanation for rejecting all six of the entirely qualified applicants was a fear that at least one vote might be different from council's preferred outcomes. It's hard to maintain balance if just one person might disagree with the council's will. Such obvious bias shows how deeply flawed the whole advisory board scheme has become. Instead of representing a variety of citizen input on matters of public policy the current council only seems interested in appointing pawns and puppets.

The six rejected applicants are appropriately upset over having been given the heave-ho. Any one of them would have provided a welcomed balance to the zoning board and private property owners. Each of the candidates had some modest background or technical expertise in dealing with Boulder's perverse, fickle, and ever-changing zoning regulations. The rejected candidates were probably the most qualified group of citizens to apply for a spot on the board in recent years. Obviously the council wasn't looking for people who might have provided some guidance in interpreting or fine-tuning the complexities of regulations and real world situations. Members of council who rejected the applicants believed that at least some or all them had hidden agendas and might actually challenge council's preferred outcomes. The real agenda was council's desire not to be challenged.

Your current City Council continuously engages in an endless display of posturing. This coming Tuesday, it will likely increasing the tax money it will appropriate in order to fund its Climate Action Plan. It will pretend to hear from the public who may or may not welcome a tax increase and then it will vote to approve the hike it has already concluded is absolutely necessary in order to achieve an elusive Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas objective that Boulder voters approved two years ago. All this despite the fact that the effort is largely symbolic if not entirely unnecessary given that whatever happens in Boulder will have no meaningful impact in reversing our planet's ever-changing climate. It will, however, make a number of citizens feel good and there's nothing more important than that.

It's interesting to note that there are at least a few Boulder citizens were willing to challenge the wisdom of spending even more money on the CAP. One citizen who supports a tax hike did wonder about the viability of the program questioning whether the funds collected so far have done any good. Remarkably a spokesperson for PLAN-Boulder County asked whether or not there was any direct relationship between simply spending more money rather than demonstrating any actual results. Progressives love to equate spending someone else's money for things they covet without being too concerned over whether or not anything of actual value is achieved.

The current worldwide recession has done more to curtail any excess carbon concerns than anything Boulder could conceive of. Thousands of China's polluting factories have been shuttered and most of India's steel mills have closed. But having more carbon action money means being able to exercise greater control. Now that's something City Council apparently can't live without.

Bob Greenlee was a member of Boulder's City Council for 16 years and served his last 2 years as mayor. Write him at: robertdgreenlee@aol.com

Pommer fesses up, pays up, sort of

So much for the supposed partisan attack machine. Yes, someone to look up to and admire. Actually, by the quotes given below, sounds a little Forrest Gump'ish and hapless. Unlike some other whiners in town, I won't stomp my feet DEMAND you all admit I was right. The comment at the end of the Face The State piece is a good one: all you chumps who contributed money to his campaign, did you know you were funding this kind of ineptitude? Yes, he wrote the check from his campaign committee funds. Jokes on you!
---------------------------------------------

This from the Denver Post:
File this under "embarrassing"
A Boulder lawmaker is socked with $20,000 in late fees for missing numerous finance-report deadlines.
By Jessica Fender

It's stupid. It's embarrassing.
And, really, there's not a good explanation why it happened, says Rep. Jack Pommer.
The Boulder Democrat missed multiple campaign-finance report-filing deadlines and racked up about $20,000 in late fees over two years.
"I screwed up a lot of paperwork," said Pommer.
Lawmakers who miss monthly disclosure deadlines accrue fines of $50 a day. Part of Pommer's debt, which began accruing in 2007, was sent to a collection agency and amassed more late fees.
Pommer, a member of the legislature's powerful Joint Budget Committee, on Tuesday wrote the secretary of state's office a check for $15,000 taken from his campaign account. The withdrawal wiped out his funds on hand.
Pommer said he had no new expenditures or fundraising to report, and it was a matter of logging on to a state website and pressing a button.
The delinquency was first noted by Face the State, a conservative blog and news site.
The lack of disclosure incensed Colorado Ethics Watch.
"All candidates, but especially incumbent officials, are expected to strictly adhere to legal requirements for transparency in their campaign activities," said Chantell Taylor, director of the watchdog group. "Rep. Pommer shirked those obligations by ignoring the well-established campaign filing deadlines, and this is not the first time."
Pommer also missed deadlines when he first arrived at the House but asked then-Secretary of State Donetta Davidson to waive the fines. She did.
Pommer, a former businessman, acknowledged that bureaucracy has never been his strong suit.
"I had a great business partner, who was really good at paperwork, which is why we didn't go out of business," Pommer said.
---------------------------------------------
And this from Face The State:
Pommer pays up

Hours after a Face the State report exposed Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, for owing close to $20,000 to the state for fines relating to delinquent campaign finance reports, he appeared in the Secretary of State's office, check in hand and ready to settle.

Pommer forked over $15,000 to the Secretary of State, writing a check from his campaign committee. He has appealed to the Secretary of State for a waiver of the balance, which includes $4,050 for his latest delinquent report and outstanding fees from the state collections agency.
Details of his assessed penalties and appeal for a waiver can be seen here (PDF).

Either Secretary of State Bernie Buescher, a Democrat, or Deputy Secretary Bill Hobbs will make the final call on waiving the balance of fees owed by Pommer.

It's good to see that Pommer finally filed his report from January and was so quick to pay his outstanding fees once they were publicized. But writing a check for $15,000 from his campaign committee raises another issue: would his donors be glad to know their generous contributions went to pay late fees for irresponsible filings? We think not.
Pommer did not return calls for comment.

Pommer has no time for campaign rules

Face The State has broken the story that State House Representative Jack Pommer (Democrat - District 11) owes nearly $20,000 for delinquent filings. The entire article can be found here, but here are some highlights:

"He sits on the powerful Joint Budget Committee and chairs the House Appropriations Committee", sounds sort of like US Representative Charlie "tax cheat extraordinaire" Rangel (Democrat - NY), doesn't it? These types that make the tax rules for the rest of us, yet can't be bothered with following any rules.

"Since 2006, Pommer and his registered agent David Kirk have filed at least five delinquent reports, one of which is still accumulating fines." "Pommer successfully ran for re-election in 2008, and has yet to file his report on contributions and expenditures due January 15, 2009". Apparently you can see all of these reports, including being sent to collections, at the Secretary of State's website (view it here click on View All Scanned Documents). Mr. Pommer and Company appear to not be very responsive to email, or snailmail to his home address or his registered agents address.

What a great example representing us!

Mr. Pommer also made the news last week when he accidentally let out the following admission:
(also from Face The State) “Weaning somebody off a subsidy is God awful painful when somebody gets used to having somebody else pay for them. When you take that money they howl, they scream, and they fight like crazy to keep it.” Oops, was his mic supposed to be on? While I find the old time western imagery of his "God awful painful" description entertaining - sounds like something straight out of "Old Yeller" - he accidentally let out the leftist argument for keeping people down and nearly into servitude with these social programs that do far more harm than good.

This is that age old complete nonsense that people have bought into for decades, that the Democratic Party is for the little guy. Can this permanently be put to rest? It's one of the biggest lies ever told. Keeping people in their place through intentional separating based on circumstances (the left is superb at class warfare) often is nothing but intentional or unintentional racism.

Do people at times need help? Absolutely, but the left's idea of help is permanent reliance on government mostly for the purpose of votes and office retention. Are there exceptions? Are some of these types genuinely concerned for the plight of these people? Perhaps, but those are diluted by the ones doing it purely for political reasons. With Mr. Pommers admission here, he just doesn't want to have to put up with the racket made by his constituents who are so used to all this free government cheese. He knows he'll be reminded "hey, we voted for you, we expected this to continue" just like Betsy Markey is being reminded how she got into office and what's expected of her.

Of course the irony in Mr. Pommers case, and no doubt hundreds of other representatives at various levels, is that they, while they campaign, tell these same people "remember what I've given you (actually what the taxpayers through the government have given you) when it's time to vote. Those big bad other guys may cut it off, don't forget!" Sounds like mobsters, but that would be giving mobsters a bad name.

If you'd like to contact Representative Pommer, I'd like to say he can be reached (but it appears he can't be reached) at (303)866-2780 or jack.pommer.house@state.co.us . Good luck.

The difference between public and private institutions

The taxpayers might as well throw in the towel because whatever authority they once held over the public institutions that enjoy their forced contributions is disappearing at an astonishing rate and the Ward Churchill case is only the latest example. The University of Colorado is not a private institution. It depends a great deal on taxpayer funding and therefore is governed by an elected Board of Regents. After due diligence these regents, who represent all the people of Colorado, found that employee Professor Churchill’s work was not up to standard, so they fired him. Along comes an accomplished tort lawyer who smells money and knows how to play a tune on journalists’ butts, sues the University, overwhelms a fumbling defense lawyer who no one has ever heard of, succeeds in making a First Amendment case out of it, which it is not, and he and his client prevail.

For Markey, the wolves are from within

First off, I want to congratulate Congresswoman Betsy Markey for her vote against President Obama’s terrible concept of a budget. Here is her statement after voting: "I grappled with this budget but ultimately could not support it. I was elected to bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington, and I believe that Congress must be more aggressive in cutting our federal deficit. At a time when families all across the country are tightening their belts, we can do a better job of rooting out inefficiencies and cutting out government waste."

Unfortunately, she was in the minority and it passed mostly along party lines 233-196. Ms. Markey was among 20 Democrats who voted against this budget, no Republicans voted for it.

More unfortunate is the attack about to commence on Ms. Markey and other so-called moderate Democrats from the loathsome left wing of that party. This starts at the bottom, the sewer of this party, and goes all the way to the top. President Obama let it be known to one of his own party members who voted against the stimulus "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." That was Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio, he saw the light and went ahead and voted for this budget. Coincidence, I’m sure.

Then, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen went begging groups like MoveOn.Org and Americans United for Change to back off going on the attack towards politicians precisely in Markey’s situation. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said "These groups should leave them alone. It’s not helpful to me. It’s not helpful to the Democratic Caucus”. Problem is, people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and yes, Barack Obama have egged on this fringe element of their party for years to get where they are. Didn’t one of these characters say something along the lines “we own this (the Democratic) party now?”

In my last piece, I said she was about to disappoint a bunch of people who supported her. I should have added “God help you when you do”, because if you thought you were dealing with rational, sensible types, you were wrong. A local example was a Times-Call Open Forum letter to Ms. Markey basically reminding her who voted her in and what they expect. This is pretty much what I expected, but this other, much larger machine (that won’t be slowed by Obama) has a much higher chance of doing serious damage.

This isn’t proof of this party having a big tent, unless it’s just a big circus tent. It’s just a pack of malcontents with their own little clubs that by and large vote similarly. Whoever they perceive “the man” to be, or “the establishment”, that’s who they’ll rail against, as long as that’s the current popular thing to do. While in this fantasy of considering themselves as anti-establishment or even revolutionary, they really are just tools for a much bigger machine that is probably everything they’re against – depending on the wind or mood that day, week, or month.

And Ms. Markey, they have been unleashed, with you and some of your colleagues in their crosshairs. They know who the potentially vulnerable candidates are in 2010, yet I don’t think that will stop them. You’ve no doubt heard of the Republicans that are lining up for the race against you; expect primary challengers from your own party to suddenly appear. If not, maybe these wolves will leave you alone, for now.

Isn’t that a nice group of people you courted to win? Locally or nationally, they are no friends of the Republic or freedom loving people. Of course I’m not talking about the rank-and-file “normal people”; these are the radicals, attack machines, lunatic fringe, hateful types, and frankly, the screwballs of your party. You surely met them on the campaign trail, crazy eyes and just not right or all there. The ones you probably thought “sure don’t want to get on their bad side”. Too late.

Instead of saying the line that always seems to get me in trouble (“you made your bed, now sleep in it”), I’ll just say you have my sympathy.

We are on the road to socialism, are you ready?

Abraham Lincoln, where are you? A government of the people, by the people, and for special interest groups is now what we have in Washington D.C., as over 100 of America’s most powerful and influential leftist-liberal organizations have formed a new coalition called Rebuild and Renew to boost President Barack Obama’s socialistic program to redistribute the nation’s wealth, starting with his current $3.6 trillion budget. Most of the members of this group are already supping at the public trough, while others either intend to, or will act as cheerleaders or even strong-arm enforcers. Government largesse manufactures votes, they know it, and that’s what this game is about.

R&R’s roster is loaded with familiar names. Heading the list is ACORN. A few more at random: the AFL-CIO, AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), Americans for Democratic Action, AAUW (American Association of University Women), Common Cause, Greenpeace, MoveOn Action Fund, National Education Association, People for the American Way, Sierra Club, and ProgressNow. The American Civil Liberties Union reportedly joined but for reasons not disclosed withdrew.

More about ProgressNow: Based in Washington D.C., it has a Denver affiliate called ProgressNowColorado, which has played and continues to play a significant role in Longmont city politics, such as fighting a church expansion project and electing key council members. Its Denver website has deleted a video of Longmont team leader Jen Gartner extolling the success of a petition drive she and her teammates engineered, but still posts a list of 80 Longmont members, most of whom are anonymous.

I lived through it: Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced socialism in 1933 with his New Deal and it did not work (unemployment in 1939 was still at 14%), Lyndon Baines Johnson tried it in 1964 with his Great Society and it did not work, now Barack Hussein Obama thinks he is smart enough to make it work. Abraham Lincoln, where are you?