Red flag on revenue sharing

Once again the foolish idea of Longmont sharing revenues with other Boulder County cities will come before city council in a study presentation on Mar. 2, 2010. As the study data and common retail sense will show, it's time to put to rest this harebrained fiscal thinking once and for all.

First, a little background from the city council agenda packet...

The Boulder County Consortium of Cities made revenue stability one of its top priorities and in 2007 they hired BBC Research and Consulting to provide research and analysis on potential methodologies to address sales tax revenue stability. Last summer a presentation on revenue stabilization was made to the City Council by Commissioner Ben Pearlman and Rachel Thompson of BBC. The Council authorized the use of $4,000 from the 2009 City Council contingency account for the purpose of engaging BBC to incorporate data from Longmont into the study they completed for the Consortium of Cities.

A previous council led by Julia Pirnack initially voiced opposition to the revenue sharing idea, but the now-ousted councilmember Karen Benker continually tried to resurrect this wealth redistribution concept while backed by a bloc majority on council for two years after the 2007 elections.

In reality, revenue sharing between BoCo cities amounts to a power play by the ruling Boulder elitists (including commissioners). They don't want retail development in their own green utopian town, but they want a piece of the action with sales tax revenue from the Wal-Marts and Lowes of other Boulder County cities who do welcome growth and retail development. Longmont must have no part of this scheme.

The real kicker was in the findings of the BBC study as it relates to Longmont...

Summary of Findings
The Boulder County revenue sharing committee suggested a revenue pooling methodology based on incremental annual growth in retail sales. The committee also suggested three possible methodologies for distributing funds to each community. None of the Boulder County revenue sharing methodologies under consideration at this time would produce benefits for the city of Longmont, although annual losses are modest under any of these scenarios. If such a system were considered, at least under the models suggested by previous county revenue sharing committee, it would have neutral effects on Longmont, or produce small losses of annual revenue.

There you have it--county revenue sharing would do no good for Longmont and may well prove negative. Many prudent Longmonters could have told this to council in the first place and saved the city $4,000. We need every penny of our precious sales tax revenue to go toward the strained Longmont budget.

In the late 1990s, the wise leaders of Broomfield, CO, knowing that the lucrative FlatIron Crossing Mall was soon to open in their locale, took the bold step of forming their own county while escaping the clutches of anti-growth Boulder County.

Likewise, maybe it's time to revitalize the talk of Longmont as the seat of a new St. Vrain County?

Smells like team spirit?

It's ironic to see how some of the more toxic of the self-proclaimed 'progressives' in town are finding their sources of entertainment these days.

Case in point: Longmont Twin Peaks Mall, which used to be the source of 22% of Longmont's tax base and now due to the economic downturn, is hovering around 6%. Seems these self-proclaimed 'progressives' in Longmont can't wait to see if it goes down on the newest council members watch so they can barf up a headline "The Baum Squad blew up the Mall!"


And now they've amped up their sickly glee against another foe in their 'death watch', in hoping (no make that getting giddy at the thought ) that the hometown newspaper, the Daily Times Call (which is one of Longmont's largest employers) is next to be devoured by a shiny new face (which ironically has to piggyback onto it's non Longmont big daddy newspaper or else be given away for free) and is going to steal Longmonters away. (Remember Councilmember ala transparent Sean McCoy's contribution to the war on the Times Call?)

Even I, who write for competing media, wouldn't wish that. The Daily Times Call is a great source of local news and a big contributor to the Longmont community. To laugh about the hardships being faced by local newspapers, or wish any of them to go under is detestable. I find it more in the best interest of Longmont to link to or promote them as often as I can.

Smells like team spirit? Depends on who's team they are playing, and it ain't Longmont's.

Guest Editorial: Jack Pommer's lack of understanding

(Guest editorial from Bonnie Finley)

When speaking about increasing taxes on business on Feb.16, Rep. Pommer stated, “Business does not care about Colorado.” I bet IBM, Roche, Seagate, Amgen and other businesses in Boulder County would disagree. They have all invested significantly in his district, providing jobs and tax base for many years. And who does he think provides the money he is busy spending? Sorry Representative, we can’t all work for the government. As a matter of fact, 84% of us work for private businesses.

His comment shows a complete lack of understanding and appreciation for the companies that have afforded the citizens of Boulder County jobs and such a beautiful place to live. These companies don’t stay in Colorado because it is a “business friendly” state. I understand that the legislature has to balance the budget. But demeaning the people, who ultimately provide the State with income, and its citizens with jobs, seems extremely insolent and disrespectful.

St Vrain Valley School District opts not to pursue Pres Obama's 'Race to the Top' educational grant

St Vrain Valley School Superintendent Don Haddad recently tweeted on his Twitter page that "I realize that there are some people who still do not fully grasp the seriousness of the state's budget. We will continue to inform." He hopes to use a series of meetings (schedule found below) to answer and take questions from parents and those affected by the expected current budget shortfall at the state level.

While the district is facing a $11M budget shortfall, Haddad also recently wrote that the SVVSD has opted not to apply for President Obama's "Race to the Top" grant.

Click here to read the rest of the story at the Longmont Examiner

Global warming snake oil

As the FlatEarth NoGrowth GlobalWarming Hustlers slowly start to fade into obscurity, in other words exactly where they belong, the Times-Call ran a Guest Editorial from I guess what would be a local version of Al Gore, Hunter Lovins.  This is sort of like watching a slow death march of those that believe the world is flat or that driving over 60mph will cause you to suffocate.  Sad, yet entertaining.

Yeah, I know we're not supposed to say "global warming" anymore since they've changed the acceptable lingo to "climate change" since the whole "global warming" didn't work out so well for them.  But we need to remember the past, and past mistakes, as to not repeat them.  And this fiasco was a whopper, these hucksters are nothing more than warmed over snake oil salesmen and women.  Pity the fools (nod to Mr. T) that still cling to this, the rest of us are laughing at you.

But let's get to some specifics of Ms. Lovins National Enquirer-worthy editorial.  "Climate protection is profitable" she said in one of her bullet points.  Well, no, lately it turns out it's not so much.  I point to this disturbing American Thinker article called "Wind Energy's Ghosts" where it talks about the not so profitable or successful wind farms around the world.  A couple in particular I've seen in action, actually the word should be inaction.  One in the Tehachapi Mountains (pictured) of California and the other in Hawaii.  They say a picture tells a thousand words, the picture at the right reminds me of old, dead oil wells in Texas from the last century.  This is the state of wind technology, and it's falling apart.

This article is a must read, but if you can't bring yourself to clicking the link I'll provide some highlights for you:   

-------------------------------------------------------------

• "...the disembodied voices of 37 skeletal wind turbines abandoned to rust on the hundred-acre site of the former Kamaoa Wind Farm (Hawaii)"
• "European wind developers are fleeing the EU's expiring wind subsidies, shuttering factories, laying off workers, and leaving billions of Euros of sovereign debt and a continent-wide financial crisis in their wake...they are tapping a new vein of lucre from the taxpayers and ratepayers of the United States."
• "Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles"
• "Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy's California "big three" locations -- Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio"
• "In the best wind spots on earth (California's "big three"), over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned.  Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills"
• "Palm Springs was forced to enact an ordinance requiring their removal"
• "10,000 annual bird deaths from Altamont Pass wind turbines"
• "No coal or nuclear power plant has ever been replaced by wind energy."
• "BP closed down the two largest solar production plants in Europe.  They are firing between 25,000 and 40,000 people...." 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So much for the Green economy providing jobs.  And here's the crux of the issue that shoots basketball sized holes into Ms. Lovin's thoughts and agenda: 

"(this from Spain) the only way is finding other countries that will give taxpayers' money away to our industry to take it and continue maintaining these jobs." 

That "other country" is the United States of America.

Waxman-Markey (HR2454, the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) seems dead, and Europe's southern periphery is bankrupt.  But the wind-subsidy proposals being floated in Congress suggest that American political leaders have yet to understand that "green power" means generating electricity by burning dollars."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This whole war on CO2 is a confusing one with the whole photosynthesis thing and all, and that of all the greenhouse gasses, water vapor really is the most prevalent.  But arguing with these global warming types is an exercise in futility as no matter what the weather is doing, it's caused by global warming, even if it's freezing, and it's all man-made.

Never forget the saying that "Green is the new Red" (Red as in Communist) and these nutjobs are just fine destroying the world economy, having us all live in mud huts, and crapping in dug out holes in our backyard.  They have places like that around the world, oddly I don't see people rushing to get in to those places, but out.  But these fine folks should feel free to locate there and take their spent CO2 with them.  Considering things like toothpaste, deodorant, makeup, and hair color are apparently (and obviously) taboo to them, we'd all be better off if they bolted ASAP.

(LA emphasis added / pic source: American Thinker)

Shooting professor a leftwing "oddball"

I know, "leftwing" and "oddball" is redundant, but the story of an Alabama professor who opened fire (yes Longmont Leftwing Loons, she used a GUN) at a school instantly reminded me of some of our local screwballs and stalkerazzi.

From the Boston Herald, these quotes were just too good to pass up on. While you read the following, think of our local examples and keep in mind that she's a far left loon (aka Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/etc), not some right-wing pistol packin' mama.  Dr. Amy Bishop (pictured) was described as:

• "an awkward introvert"  (bite tongue, don't say anything...)
• “She was an oddball - just not very sociable,”   (hold me back...)
• she's a suspect in an attempted pipe bombing  (never put it past them)
• "Bishop shot her brother to death"  (ditto)
• "She wasn’t an attractive girl, she didn’t have friends"  (hi gals!)
• "was a far-left political extremist who was “obsessed” with President Obama to the point of being off-putting."

That last one in particular got my attention, that is so spot on for some of these people in town that just recently discovered "politics".  It's a pretty predictable course: they get the hero worship down pat, go way overboard, declare anyone who disagrees with them the enemy, and blindly go on the warpath.  

Ah, but the after effects are equally predictable:  their hero turns out to be quite human after all and as big of a screw-up as they are (they live vicariously through their leaders, sad as it is), realize they probably burned one too many bridges, feel like the cretins they are, and either slip back into obscurity or, like the loon above, just goes nuts.


I know many of you have no idea of what I'm talking about, figure I'm speaking in code, so I'll make it easy for you.  Check out the Public Invited To Be Heard portion of the February 16, 2010 Longmont City Council meeting and you'll see some there, others at (sounds like) Deranged Longmont, and the (not-so) fine folks that rail against LifeBridge and HeavenFest whenever possible - common denominator: religion.  Man, do they hate it.  

Oh, and they're obsessed with Obama... (see above)

Election Committee, Fair Campaign Act letter to City Council

Mayor Baum and members of council,

I think it may behoove you to sort out a situation with the Election Committee (EC) sooner rather than later.  Regardless of where you stand on the issue of whether they should continue to be a quasi-judicial body or not, the EC plans on spending every week for the next several weeks working on multiple scenarios that include both options.  You could really save them a lot of time and effort, and allow them to get to the more important work of fixing problems with the LFCPA, if you’d just give them the direction on this one way or the other.

I attended the Friday Feb 19th meeting and it was an interesting and lively discussion, but it took up 3 hours and little else was worked on.  While they did take a vote that there should be some quasi-judicial aspect to the LFCPA, they would not vote on whether or not it should be the EC that is the quasi-judicial instrument.  The other option would be to use a 3 member Election Commission, which I believe is spelled out in the City Charter.  Or just letting the municipal court handle it completely.

I definitely got the sense from nearly every member that they no longer wanted to be judge and jury, and other than one member (and at least one council member) everyone should agree that $40,000 for what was accomplished is not acceptable and should not occur in the future under any circumstances.  This is not the “price for democracy”, and the excuse that things like this cost a lot in the beginning just doesn’t hold up as nothing positive came out of spending that unwarranted amount of money – other than fattening lawyers wallets.

So I strongly suggest you make life a little easier on them and their time and decide, a) should the EC continue in a quasi-judicial role, b) if not, should an Election Commission take over that role, or c) neither a nor b and let the City Clerk and City Attorney just turn over all valid complaints to the municipal court. 

On a related matter is the issue of the EC’s meeting times and dates.  On the City Clerks website it says they meet the “third Monday of each month at 6:30pm.”  This is fairly typical of most city boards and committees.  But instead they are all over the map: this last meeting was on a Friday at 2pm, and the next 5 or so will be on Mondays at 2pm.  None are scheduled on a Monday at 6:30pm.  I’ve been to enough meetings to know that they are not trying to hide anything from the public with this schedule; they just have a lot of work to do.  That doesn’t mean other members of the public will see it the same way.

Most people I know work Mondays at 2pm, could any of you make one of those meetings?  I know I won’t be able to attend anymore, and other than Rich Yale, no one else attends these meetings, which is a shame.  Like anything else, education is key, and the more the public knew about the work related to this important issue, the better off we would all be.

Pommer as sharp as they come?

I rarely comment on, and even rarely write a post about, Open Forum letters in the Times-Call.  But there was one statement made in the Saturday February 20, 2010 Open Forum that was just too much of a hanging slider to pass up on.

A Matthew P. Brandt of Longmont was taking local education advocate Brad Jolly to task for comments he recently made about the St. Vrain Valley School District (SVVSD).  I followed the original issue very minimally but have found that usually Mr. Jolly is right on the money and has almost been prophetic when it comes to the SVVSD and their missteps.  Like myself, he has a way of polarizing opinions of citizens and takes his fair share of shots because of it, I can respect that.

Mr. Brandt called Brad "angry", said he was "full of innuendo and sarcasm", and his writing wasn't "nice".  Oh no, not the "he wasn't nice" charge!  That's it, based on that judgment I will no longer read Mr. Jolly and neither should you (sarcasm alert).  I can almost hear Rodney King pleading "can't we all get along?"  Well, no, we can't.  Not when you have the polite police on patrol - nevermind this one throw out a few aspersions of his own towards Mr. Jolly.

But what takes the cake is the ultra-ludicrous statement that Mr. Brandt utters that destroys what little credibility he may have had (alright, probably wasn't much to begin with):  "State Rep. Jack Pommer (aka John "Jack") is as sharp as they come.  He knows the issues."  Just when I thought I'd have a quiet Saturday relaxing and watching the Olympics.  Where to start, and I will try really hard not to use the "s" word that the Times-Call would rather me avoid using in Guest Editorials (this "s" word is stupid)

I'll start with the most recent "sharp" action by Mr. Pommer, check out this YouTube video of John "Jack" going completely nuts.  What a guy!  Sounds like he's about to burst an artery, and break into tears, what an embarrassment.  Then there's the endless assault he and Brandon Shaffer have made on the Electoral College, funny they haven't done it lately now that the Dems are (temporarily) in charge.  I suppose Mr. Brandt missed the not so little issue John "Jack" had with campaign rules (here and here) and the fines he had to pay?  Fines paid out of campaign contributions no less!  But wait, there's more!  He also may have taken $5,000 in illegal campaign contributions from lobbyists!  

We need a new nickname for this (thankfully) term-limited representative:  "Sharp Jack".  Free government cheese for everyone! 

Guest Editorial: Voluntary campaign reporting

A Paul Tiger guest opinion

The Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act requires that candidates and committees report to the city clerk. The clerk publishes this information online, and looks for errors in math, dates or anything glaringly wrong.

The problem is that the LFCPA provides opponents of issues committees or candidates a method of launching attacks on credibility and accountability. Those under attack face paying for a legal defense, whereas the real plaintiffs only intending to harass, get city paid bulldogs.

There has been a chilling effect on running for office and challenging issues. Local politically active voices are concerned that freedom of speech could have a fine attached, and no longer be free.

LFCPA cannot remove candidates already confirmed for the ballot, but it can work as an aide in a smear campaign.

De-regulate it. Make reporting voluntary. Let candidates and committees report on their own websites or give them to the press, if they choose. Let the people on the ballot be directly accountable to voters. Would you vote for someone who would not post their own campaign’s financial reports? That is ultimately the business of the press and the voters.

The only reason it has been the business of government is to employ a prosecutorial loss leader. Government leaders, who fight tooth and claw to maintain control over elections, justify the methods as ‘justice being served’.

Let a candidate or committee present their reports directly to the public, via the internet or whatever means develop. Constituents can check figures and dates as well as the city. Correct and precise reporting can only benefit the candidate, while fumbling and blatant misrepresentations will hurt them at the polls. It should not be the business of the city to broadcast report status, or punish the participants of the electoral process.

Each year the state or city adds or subtracts more and less to and from campaign finance reform. The result hasn’t been reform at all. Instead we have overlapping rules of confusion for candidates, and nearly no oversight of political committees. This reform has been costly to government and has had a deleterious effect on elections. 

The comprehension and reporting requirements are for candidates and committees alone. Their relationship is with the voters, not with the incumbent administration. It is not necessary for the government to interpret campaign finance reform (CFR) reports for the voters. Quite simply, the clerk puts the report online, which any candidate or committee could do themselves. Errors or questions about a posted CFR report should be answered or corrected by the candidate or committee, and not directed to the clerk. 

Currently, governments that enforce CFR levy charges and even fines, before or during the election cycle. This effects elections. Even if charges are proven false, the election will have been affected by government interference in the process. 

Violations of CFR cannot remove candidates from the ballot, nor can it remove them from office after election. Therefore, CFR is the primary tool of opposition groups using government as the hammer. It may well be the tool of an incumbent administration to cast dispersions on new comer challengers. 

CFR’s chilling effect is in treating candidates and political activists as criminals. It levels the playing field by dozing it clear.

Scoping the Fourth Estate

More postmortems . . .

“Recipe for real reform,” a column by Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University who always has a lot to say about politics, appeared in the Feb. 13 edition of the Times-Call. Let’s take a look at some of his “reforms,” most of which incidentally are not new.
Turley advocates removing barriers to third parties and wants a federally funded electronic forum to post their positions and materials (what’s wrong with using the Internet?), and thinks they all should be entitled to federally funded debates (a dozen candidates on stage?). Well, whenever the government injects money into the electoral system the partisans in Congress will prevail. The government should stay out of elections; it’s already in too deep through McCain-Feingold.
Turley says one of the reasons incumbents are returned to power is that the voters have little choice in the general election. He suggests a constitutional amendment to put the two top vote-getters in a primary on the general election ballot instead of just one. Which I think would only make it easier for the officeholder because the opposing votes would be split.
He wants to abolish the Electoral College. This argument is so old I’m surprised that anyone who is dedicated to the rights of the minority, as I’m sure Turley is, would keep bringing it up. Without the EC, scarcely populated states such as Colorado, Wyoming and Montana would be afterthoughts.
He also says that if no presidential candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote, there should be a runoff of the two top vote-getters like, get this, “in most other nations.” What that will prove, I do not know. We need more voters. People who don’t vote get the kind of government they deserve.
To enact all this reform, Turley wants the people to call for their own Constitutional convention. A very difficult process at best and a dangerous one because God only knows what the political opportunists will do with our Constitution once they get their busy little fingers on it.
In the name of reform, I think Turley should stick with teaching law.

THE LONGMONT LEDGER, a freebie published by the Boulder Daily Camera, is currently flooding the Longmont market. Talk about greed. Founded by the Paddock family of Boulder in 1884, the Camera was sold in 1969 to the Ridder Company. In 1977, Ridder merged into Knight-Ridder; then, in 1997, K-R traded it to E. W. Scripps for two west-coast dailies. Scripps, making a nice stream of revenue from its Home&Garden channel grew weary of subsidizing its newspaper operations, so the Rocky Mountain News died and Dean Singleton’s MediaNews group absorbed the Camera. The Camera’s massive press was dismantled, and the Camera Building, long a landmark in downtown Boulder, was placed on the market but remains unsold. In the freebie’s “In Brief” column of Feb. 14 titled “City settles open meetings suit with newspaper,” it is implied that the citizens of Longmont overturned the LifeBridge Church decision at the ballot box when in fact that proposition has never been brought to a direct public vote.
For Longmont information, I prefer the local Times-Call. Incidentally, Clay Evans who edits the Ledger lives in Longmont and is a former employee at the Lehman family's T-C.

Ledger falls into leftwing trap

People make mistakes, that's fine.  The Longmont Ledger made a couple of large ones recently, but at least they corrected it quickly.  But, as always, there's more to the story.

In a February 10, 2010 story titled "Longmont settles open meetings suit with newspaper" there were two factual errors (in bold):  1) That Firestone suit, another of the three raised during the fall campaign, is still pending, as is another against the city’s campaign-finance rules, and 2) The City Council approved an annexation for that project in 2007, but citizens overturned that decision at the ballot box in 2008.  The original story was written by "Clay Evans", the corrected version was by "Longmont Ledger".  Hmm, okay.

For a paper that's trying to be a legitimate alternative to the Times-Call, and you'd hope someone at the Longmont Ledger actually lives in Longmont, or at least pays some attention to what's going on here - how could they miss the quite large news that the campaign finance lawsuit was settled?  Remember that $68,500 figure?

But the second item is more troubling.  The wording of the original and the correction is almost verbatim of a new leftwing website in Longmont.  If you were a casual observer and had no idea what's going on in Longmont, you could swear they are stating as fact that they got the anti-LifeBridge annexation question on the ballot!  Well, they didn't, but the Ledger apparently fell for it.  This ranks right up there with falling for an internet hoax and spreading it around before doing a little bit of research.

But that's not all.  When Clay Evans was considering having one of us cover Longmont City Council meetings for the Ledger, he was concerned about our leanings.  Don't bust a gut laughing over that one, this is after all a former editorial page editor for the Daily Camera.  Not long after he's on lefty lovefest radio KGNU (don't bother trying to find it, dog whistles and sonar have more listeners), and now he's getting ideas for Ledger articles from the lefty screwballs in town and their blogs?  Add to that some comments on the Ledger that were not friendly towards one of these screwballs, like around 30 total, that were all taken down.  But the Ledger has no problem leaving up comments and letters that cast all kinds of aspersions towards me, by name?  It's getting harder and harder to take this entity seriously.

Here's the deal:  This site, Longmont Advocate, doesn't pretend to be a purely news site, it's mostly commentary and opinion.  Sure, we may break some news that the paper either didn't cover or not in very much detail, but that's not the meat and potatoes of this site.  Another site has popped up recently (the one the Ledger got fooled by) called Free Range Longmont (might as well say their name, they're obsessed with us and/or the many sites/projects we have involvement with).  It basically copies the concept of this site but from a leftwing perspective, and is ran from the people who were crushed in the last election.  Our MO here was apparently so successful, who wouldn't want to copy that?

Difference being is that they want the Ledger to succeed, always talk it up, and always tear down an actual local paper, the Times-Call.  I don't believe I've ever put a legitimate news operation in the position of getting this kind of egg on its face (a legitimate news operation wouldn't allow it in the first place - I know, stating the obvious again).  This leftwing echo chamber in town, which apparently has Mr. Evans ear, just made both the Longmont Ledger and Free Range Longmont look amateurish, and frankly, quite buffoonish.

Read each at your own risk.  Or take as seriously as Mad Magazine or The Onion*.

* - no knock on The Onion, which I love and still have permission to use on this site and podcast.
(Image source: Twitter)

CO Secretary of State candidate visits Longmont

Colorado Secretary of State Candidate Scott Gessler paid a visit to Longmont Wednesday night in what turned out to be a very well attended event, including a handful of protesters who Scott personally engaged on the sidewalk where they gathered.  (Full disclosure, Scott is a friend and was our attorney in our successful First Amendment lawsuit against the City of Longmont).  Some of the signs were a little confusing, yet humorous.  One said "Gessler sued Longmont", well, actually a bunch of plaintiffs sued and he was the attorney, which was in a few papers several times - not exactly unknown information.

Another comical one was "Gessler = Dirty Money".  I believe the money the attorneys got from Longmont was quite clean actually.  Or is that a knock on the federal judge or the city council for unanimously agreeing to the settlement? 

  

Logic is usually not part of the equation when dealing with this handful (literally, the same handful we hear from on the screwball left of Longmont) of, as Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy put it, "a small disconnected fringe element" or something to that effect.  As usual they looked like the ragtag pack of homeless cretins you wouldn't want in your home - but Mr. Gessler gave them his ear and reiterated during his talk (along with former Longmont Mayor Leona Stoecker as she introduced him) that he fights for everyone's First Amendment rights, including theirs.  As you can see, I'm not as gracious - especially when one of their pillars Ruby Bowman (aka Prairie Dog Lady) called everyone attending this event a bunch of "scumbags" supposedly.  The protesters attended it, too, so she's partially correct in a way.

(A side note: I didn't talk to these protesters, or stalkerazzi if you will.  Like Mark Levin puts it, they are to me like dog crap is to my shoe.)

I'm often more critical towards someone I'm in favor of than someone I'm against when listening to talks and speeches like this.  Usually it's to give constructive criticism and look for weak spots to correct, good and bad impressions, places where the casual observer may not understand or like something said or how it's delivered, etc.  I already had the benefit of seeing Scott in action in federal court, where he handled himself extremely well.  I'd only met Scott recently when our case was filed and didn't even know he was a candidate for this office, so it was a clean slate for me.

Scott gave a great talk hitting all the important areas of why he's more than qualified to be Secretary of State.  What was surprising was hearing of cases he's fought that were for political polar opposites from himself, including a Socialist candidate.  While he makes no apologies for being a Republican, he also acknowledges the rights of every person or party as long as they follow the law.  He wants to help administer that law, with the obvious attention to campaign and election law, which is his area of expertise.  His opponent on the other hand has no experience in these areas.

As the campaign moves along I (or the Longmont Examiner, aka Mrs. Longmont Advocate) will talk about the duties of the Secretary of State (something we have some direct experience with) and the background and experience of the candidates.  While I've volunteered to varying extents for five campaigns (and am 5-for-5 in victorious campaigns), I've never contributed money to anyone running for any office.  Tonight that changed and I was honored to have Scott ask me to co-host this event.  Scott will most likely be running against the George Soros/Leftwing funded "Secretary of State Project" as much as he'll be running against his opponent.  They were unsuccessful last time they tried this in Colorado, and this race isn't yet on their website.  But give it time.

I don't like the financial aspect of campaigns, dislike asking people for money even more (probably why it's unlikely I'll ever run for office), but Scott will need a lot of money to overcome this radical leftwing machine.  Remember, they can't win if they don't cheat.  Having a Secretary of State in office who will catch and stop their cheating is public enemy #1 to them.  One word: ACORN.  Need I say more?

Visit Scott's website at ScottGessler.Com and find out more, and contribute money if you feel so inclined.

Postmortems

Percy’s comments on some of the contributions appearing on the Times-Call opinion page of Feb. 9, 2010:

First, Robert Ferenc’s letter, “Cameras don’t know who is driving,” regarding the proposed traffic cameras made a lot of sense. (Note: He and I exchanged barbs recently on another issue.) In addition to the several problems Ferenc cited in questioning the use of these devices, my objection is that the cameras installed for traffic enforcement purposes can easily be converted to provide the government with constant surveillance of the people. Unless we prefer to live in the world of “Big Brother,” I think we can do without the authorities watching our every move. And no, I’m not “for” allowing scofflaws behind the wheel to run amok.

In his letter “What do we get for health care?” Tony Umile recommends that it may be worthwhile to compare our health care with that of Europe, which, according to the data he presented, is superior to ours. He may be correct, but I have my doubts. For one thing, the countries involved usually collect heavy taxes from everybody to pay for it. So their free health care may not be so free after all. From personal experience, I’ve visited several different European countries and fortunately had no need to experience their health-care services. Unfortunately, I was once hospitalized in Cartagena, Colombia, and to get out of there and into a hospital in the United States was a most welcome experience. We’ve got to be careful in screwing around with our health-care system that we not end up destroying what we have.

And finally, I wish there was some way for Brad Jolly, education activist who authored the essay “School district still misrepresenting the basic facts” to serve as a full-time analyst of school finances and policies. I think it would be helpful to have a knowledgeable, outside person of his caliber monitoring and interpreting the issues, making recommendations if warranted, and publishing the findings on a regular basis. What do you think?

Green Police ad rings locally

Any politically aware Boulder County resident could immediately relate to our own plague of enviro-Nazis when viewing Audi's clever Super Bowl TV commercial Sunday...

http://www.youtube.com/v/Wq58zS4_jvM&hl
Look and sound familiar? How about the Boulder County commissioners and their Draconian land use policies? Or Czar Ron Stewart and his overbearing open space department? You know, the 95,000 acres, $200 million bond debt, and three running open space sales taxes for decades to come?

And don't forget the little goodie that nearly 80% of BoCo open space is off-limits to the public, same as Longmont's plans for its recent $8.1 million Adrian land purchase near Union Reservoir. How is my quality of life so wonderfully enhanced when I can't even set foot on all this open space paid for with my own tax dollars?

The latest fad from the Church of Green is city-sponsored collection programs for composting food and organics. Now I've got nothing against composting, don't care to do it myself (I gladly recycle otherwise), but do we really want every Longmont residence to have three different refuse bins? What's more, a stinking compost bin invites all kinds of problems for storage and animal intrusion.

The enviros squawk about air, water, noise and light pollution, sometimes rightfully so. Who wants to add more pollution with countless trash bins on the streets and at the homes of city dwellers? Plus I don't want my overall trash fees increasing in Longmont for another pie-in-the-sky program to appease the far left and earth-worshipers.

When is enough enough with this green utopian dream of zero waste?

Progressives grossly fail the Four-Way Test

When Mayor Bryan Baum first took office last November he expressed the desire for city council chambers to have the same guiding principles as the renowned "Four-Way Test" of the Rotarians International...

The Four-Way Test
Of the things we think, say or do

1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

Easily observable is how the insurgent Progressive Left in Longmont miserably fails this test of ethics on every count, all to the detriment of our once All-America City. In practically every form of discourse, especially the city council public invited podium of late, all we see from the Progressives is lies vs. truth, inequity vs. fairness, discord vs. goodwill, and adversarialness vs. friendship.

It's been said the only thing these radicals want to "progress" with their agenda is to progress beyond the U.S. Constitution--getting beyond the principles established for the good of America (and present-day Longmont) by our nation's Founding Fathers.

The far left in this country, on the national scene right down to Longmont, are truly the ones who are rigid and intolerant. A certain local blogger likes to embrace whatever is vulgar and profane, displaying a form of hatred toward whatever is wholesome. People with a spiritual sense can recognize such viciousness as a fundamental rebellion against God and His ways, certainly nothing new under the sun. It's been going on with mankind since Creation.

I respect Mayor Baum for standing for the truth and what is right for Longmont.