Mount Virtus

I am the pseudonymous conservative gadfly blogger on a local education new site. At least that’s what 9News would have you believe:

Not everyone agrees. An online blogger named “Uncle Charley” has written several entries for Education News Colorado trying to get readers to think about the need before they act.

One blog is entitled, “More Tough Questions on DPS Bond,” which talks in part about the individual items that would be funded by this bond issue and series of property tax hikes have agreed to in Denver over the past two decades.

“Uncle Charley” is actually the pseudonym for Ben DeGrow, with the Independence Institute, a non-partisan conservative political think tank. DeGrow says spending $13 million dollars on athletic fields and other monies for failing and half-filled schools is not wise.

“$34-and-a-half million is a lot to renovate North High School. Seems like a large amount of money,” said DeGrow. “Yet, there’s not really a clear connection between the bond and all this $454 million that ties into this whole scheme of improving student performance.”

With no known opposition to the 3A campaign, someone had to raise questions about the largest school bond proposal in Colorado history. Undoubtedly, there are plenty of legitimate needs to be funded in the $454 million package.

But not all of it’s so deserving. There is no line-item veto on 3A. Denver voters have to approve the whole package or turn it all down. Given the city denizens’ propensity to approve tax increases, even the current recession probably isn’t enough to change the trend.

You’re not likely to see me write any more on the topic. Nor the erstwhile “Uncle Charley”. Rumors that his true identity might be Ward Churchill, William Ayers, or even the president of the Colorado Education Association have now been thoroughly dispelled. If you’re going to come out and reveal an identity like this, might as well do it with a tiny splash.

Laughable quote of the day from Democrat state senator Brandon Shaffer, as reported in Politicker:

In state Senate District 19, Shaffer gave Democrat Evie Hudak the edge over Republican Libby Szabo, saying Szabo is “extraordinarily partisan.”

“Eventually, there’s enough of a base there, enough unaffiliated voters who are looking for more of a collaborative approach to getting things done across party lines, that they’ll come home to Evie,” Shaffer said.

More of a collaborative approach from Evie Hudak? The Evie Hudak who publicly stated “I support the entire Democratic party platform”? I guess one would have to be “extraordinarily partisan” himself to think that represents a “collaborative approach”.

Yes, I’m still laughing. Politicians in the course of their duty often say plenty of questionable truth value. But then sometimes one of them opens his mouth and blows the truth right out of the water. Brandon Shaffer dropped a real whopper.

Libby Szabo is in a tight race. Please help her out however you can.

The Rocky Mountain News reports on a complaint filed yesterday by Amendment 49 supporters:

Backers of Amendment 49, which would prohibit union dues from being deducted from public payrolls, have filed a complaint with the Colorado secretary of state alleging that an opposing group failed to disclose its intention to campaign against them.

Instead, Coloradans For Middle Class Relief states in its registration with the secretary of state that it would campaign against Amendment 47, according to the complaint by Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute and author of Amendment 49. But Caldara said Coloradans For Middle Class Relief has sent out fliers on other ballot measures as well, including Amendments 49 and 54.

The Denver Post has a similar story. Both merit a “no comment” from the group caught in violation of campaign finance laws.

Pictures of the Coloradans for Middle Class Relief flyers that illegally attack 49 and 54 can be seen here and here (back and front). In fact, you probably received one or both at your home.

The union lobbyist-funded committees have more money than they know what to do with. Between Protect Colorado’s Future and Coloradans for Middle Class Relief, more than $20 million has been raised to attack Amendment 49 (Ethical Standards) and two other initiatives.

With that kind of money, it’s quite easy for union lobbyists to flout the law and ask forgiveness later. They can’t afford to have Amendment 49 pass, which would mean giving up their free government collection service and put them on a level playing field with every other special interest group. Political power indeed corrupts.

In this case, the flagrant breaking of campaign laws simply points out the need for Ethical Standards. But by the time the truth can have a fair hearing, it may be too late.

The media establishment is getting closer to covering the grossly negligent standards of the Barack Obama campaign’s collection and processing of online donations: see this Washington Post story by Matthew Mosk from yesterday.

Nevertheless, Powerline’s Scott Johnson notes that the heart of the story continues to be missed:

Yet Mosk’s story yesterday is still lacking. It fails to observe that the McCain campaign’s online donation screen contributors through the use of the basic Address Verification System. On the contary, it creates the false impression that the McCain campaign is party to the same modus operandi.

Moreover, despite the implication of the Obama campaign’s statement that it provides “extensive review” to donations received online, Mosk fails to note that Obama contributors using a valid credit card but a fictitious name and address cannot be effectively screened once they have been accepted. That’s why the McCain campaign is using AVS security and the Obama campaign is not, but Mosk’s story blurs the difference between the campaigns.

Mosk’s regurgitation of the statement that the Obama campaign “has ensured that [it] has refunded any improper contributions” is ludicrous. We know, for example, that “John Galt,” “Osama bin Laden,” “Bill Ayers,” “Saddam Hussein,” “Della Ware,” and “Adolfe Hitler,” among many others, are still waiting for their refunds. Again, one wonders if Mosk means to be obtuse.

Mosk also relates the Obama campaign’s comment “that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.” But failing to screen donors at the front end coincidentally facilitates the violation of basic federal campaign finance law. Federal campaign finance law requires donors contributing over $200 to be identified, limits donations to a total of $2,300 and prohibits foreigners from contributing.

The Obama campaign’s intentional disabling of basic AVS credit card security knowingly facilitates criminal fraud and illegal contributions. Is this too difficult a concept to grasp? John Ronning, for example, provides a step-by-step set of instructions for foreigners seeking to contribute to the Obama campaign.

Why would the Obama campaign intentionally switch off the basic AVS safeguards? Can they be held responsible for such negligence in any way? If there’s a legal loophole here, it needs to be addressed. Meanwhile, Mark Steyn imagines a hard-hitting interview of Barack Obama on the issue of online fraud by Charlie the Anchor.

The always erudite Phil Mella reminds readers of “the problem with polls”, and why it’s better generally to ignore them during the give-and-take of a long campaign. I understand the point he’s conveying, but no matter which side of the political spectrum you’re on, it is awfully tempting to take a peek at the daily poll numbers and read more into them than is actually there. Maybe there’s a treatment program for political junkies….

The good news is that in 5 days we’ll have the only poll that counts, and we can go back to life as normal. (Or the new socialist utopia that’s promised to us. Cough. Sorry.)

My Leadership Program of the Rockies (LPR) classmate, sometimes Backbone America radio co-host, and Independence Institute senior fellow Krista Kafer debuted a weekly Face The State column today.

Here’s the timely conclusion of this first installment:

Special interests that have much to gain from the demise of Amendments 47 and 49 are funneling millions of dollars into the election. Slick campaigns from candidates and groups lure voters with the promise to “Protect Colorado’s Future.” The advocacy groups, leftist candidates, and sadly, even the media, are banking on the public’s fears for the economy to turn the election in their favor. Unfortunately, conservatives and libertarians have had trouble articulating what’s at stake. Free stuff is, after all, an easier sell than freedom. If the electorate opts for the former over the latter, dark days are ahead.

Ben Franklin once warned, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Such a warning has never been more relevant.

Krista’s column will be a regular read for me. Almost every time I have ever conversed with her, she has said something insightful that puts the situation into a principled perspective. I appreciate that in her, something you see in her writing, too. I hope you take time to check out Krista’s column regularly.

Read and hear more about what the sheriffs had to say here.

The Rocky Mountain News today provides the most systematic deconstruction of the grossly misleading, multi-million dollar Protect Colorado’s Future campaign against 49:

There’s no obligation for political campaigns to be fair, let alone balanced, but there are times when messages go beyond the pale.

Case in point: the advertising, largely bankrolled by labor unions, to defeat Amendment 49, the “ethical standards” initiative.

• Muzzle workers and endanger public safety? “In what way? The amendment doesn’t say unions can’t collect dues. It just says government can’t collect dues for them.”
• Threaten public employees’ paychecks? “Nonsense.”
• Silence small business? “Bizarre.”
• Backed by multinational corporations? “What a joke.”

Or as Mike Rosen says about Protect Colorado’s Future, after listening to one of their over-the-top, ridiculous ads on his 850 KOA radio talk show: “They think you’re stupid. Don’t be stupid.”

Readers of this blog are now well familiar with the orchestrated deception by a group called Protect Colorado’s Future (PCF) against Amendment 49, the Ethical Standards initiative. In addition to numerous Colorado newspaper editorial boards, respected public figures like former U.S. Senator Hank Brown and former state treasurer Mark Hillman have refuted the lies.

Many of PCF’s false claims center around purported negative effects on the ability of law enforcement and public safety workers to do their jobs. Who better to refute the lies than respected law enforcement officials whose jurisdictions already have an Ethical Standards policy in place?

In today’s Denver Post, three Colorado county sheriffs took their turn at batting down the dishonest, multi-million dollar ad campaign:

The sheriffs disputed claims that the measure would hinder their ability to do their jobs. One print ad financed by opponents shows Denver sheriff’s deputy Jeff Shaw of Commerce City stating that Amendment 49 and two other measures would hurt his ability to secure “better body armor and modern equipment.”

“It’s ludicrous and insulting,” Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said….

(more…)

(Face The State)

Do you think maybe the sign stealing has gotten a bit out of hand? This kind of repeated vandalous behavior has all the trademarks of *union goon activity. Hey, union goons, don’t pretend like you don’t know what I’m talking about.

Less than a week. Take a deep breath. It will all be over soon.

(*Of course, there are fiends and idiots on all sides of the political spectrum who pilfer political signs off people’s private property. But I come from Michigan. No one is as skilled and prolific at this sort of activity as the union goons.)

Rocky Mountain Right has the right idea. Give as you are able while it can still make a difference. Unless you really want Colorado turned liberal blue.

More thoughts on the contest at: The Colorado Index, Blue Collar Muse, and Peoples Press Collective.

Sleazy ads by the Democrats’ 527 group Accountability for Colorado? Say it ain’t so (from the Rocky Mountain News editorial page):

The sleaziest flier this season? Probably the one targeting Republican Kevin Priola, who’s running for the District 30 state House seat in Adams County. It claims a judge “issued a restraining order against Priola out of fears that he posed a threat and imminent danger to the victim.”

Come to think of it, a second anti-Priola flier may be worse. It says that the “judge found [my emphasis] that Priola posed a threat and imminent danger to the victim.”

In fact, requests for temporary restraining orders are routinely granted just to be on the safe side until a hearing can be held. In this case, the person requesting the order against Priola (as well as his father and their firm) was a delinquent tenant trying to thwart an eviction. And the stunt didn’t work – the order was soon dismissed by the court.

There was no “victim” and no one in “danger.” A judge “found” nothing of the kind.

Notice that these fliers never mention the gender of the person requesting the order – a male – no doubt in order to leave the impression that a woman had been harassed or stalked. For that matter, both fliers suggest that Priola would be interested as a lawmaker in making it harder for judges to issue restraining orders – a flat-out invention.

So who’s responsible for these travesties? A group called Accountability for Colorado, which is partly funded by wealthy activists Tim Gill and Pat Stryker. These two fat cats, respected members of the state’s establishment, apparently have no qualms joining with those who trash the reputations of the innocent. [emphasis added]

The “sleaziest” ad of Colorado’s political season is not only funded by Left-wing billionaires Tim Gill and Pat Stryker (leaders of the Colorado Democracy Alliance). The Colorado Education Association (CEA) also has given tens of thousands of dollars of automatically deducted member dues and contributions to Accountability for Colorado. Do you think they took a straw poll of members first? Do you think they will disclose to members how their money was spent – at least in time for them to get a refund (if they even know about the refund)?

If Amendment 49 (Ethical Standards) were passed, and groups like CEA had to collect money directly from members, do you think they’d be as likely to brazenly spend their money on groups with such a record of sleazy deception?

And if this story makes you mad, I recommend you find a way to support Kevin Priola.

So you’re a conservative and you’re not that inspired by John McCain’s record or the way he has run this campaign? Sarah Palin isn’t enough motivation for you? Well, this snippet from Howard Kurtz’s Washington Post column may just give you all the extra incentive you need to get out and vote for McCain-Palin (and the whole Republican team, of course):

“If the mainstream media are wrong about Obama and the voters pull a Truman, that is going to be the end of whatever shred of credibility they have left,” says Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University’s College of Communication.

Stamping out the last shred of media establishment credibility? That sounds pretty appealing to me. (more…)

Let me add my small blog voice to the growing crowd: The Los Angeles Times needs to release the video that supposedly shows Barack Obama “toasting a terrorist” (and not in the nuclear vaporization sort of way, either). As Little Green Footballs points out, the infamous figure in question is former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi.

RedState has the latest in the form of a Fox News report:

No one can credibly deny that the media establishment is in the tank for Barack Obama. If there’s nothing to see, a public vetting of the video would dispel the rumors. But the longer the Times clings to it, the more legitimate suspicion grows. And the Times‘ excuses for not releasing the video don’t hold much water. All appearances indicate they are covering for their preferred presidential candidate, and it’s a disservice to the public.

Michelle Malkin is right: continuing on this trend is bad for the newspaper business.