Important Change

First, we apologize for not posting anything for the 2014 General Election cycle. We have experienced some changes in priorities and as a result are not able to continue our joint efforts here at Voice4CO.

If you are interested in following Colorado politics from a Biblical perspective, you can continue to do that at http://1Voice4CO.wordpress.com/. Commentary for some of the major issues that will be on your 2014 ballot is already posted at http://1Voice4CO.wordpress.com/.

Again, we apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused you.

June 24, 2014 CO Primary Ballot

Labels: Christian, conservative, etc. They get used a lot, but have lost their meaning to many who use them. As voters, we must discern whether or not those using the labels to describe themselves are just telling you what you want to hear so you will vote for them. Our city, county, state and nation reflect that many of us have been bamboozled by such claims. Remember, you are voting for people who are going to be making the laws you will have to obey.

Biblical Candidate Guidelines

In the Old Testament (Exodus 18:21), God gave us an excellent standard to use for our leaders: “But select capable men from all the people — men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain — and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.”
From All The People:  Can we please stop recycling the same political people into different offices? Our country was designed by our Founders to be run by its citizens. If you keep electing the same people over and over again into different positions, most of them begin to think and act like they are a privileged group — like political royalty and “we the people” become the peons/peasants. It is the way of human nature unchecked by God. The peons/peasants need to step up and step out and run for office — no matter how ugly the political royalty gets — and, believe us, they get ugly when they see their political power slipping away.
Capable People:  Please stop listening to the media or anyone else who says someone is not qualified for office because that person’s resume does not read a certain way (i.e., previous office holder or a lawyer). The language of lawyers is locking us out of our own government so the less of them we elect, the better off we will be. Candidates only need to be capable, not have a specific pedigree (as defined by the political and media elites).
People Who Fear God:  Our government was designed by our Founders for a moral and Christian nation — it will not work for any other kind of people. It is not “demanding perfection” to ask for our leaders to have virtue, which only comes from fearing God. We find it ironic that those who have a problem with that, are some of the first to be outraged by past imperfections of true conservatives who have turned their lives around with the help of God.
Trustworthy People:  Did they do what they promised when they wanted your vote? If not, don’t vote for them. Trust is easily broken and we need to be very discerning about how broken trust is handled.
People Who Hate Dishonest Gain:  This is a real problem in our government at every level. Officials believe it is acceptable to fleece “we the people” (aka peons/peasants/taxpayers) for (fill-in-the-blank): developer buddies, CEO buddies, extended term limits, lobbyists who pay well for access, mindless and endless bureaucracies, etc.

This is not an impossible standard or God would not have laid it out for us. The more we compromise, the farther we get from the kind of people God would have govern us.

As always, what follows is our sense of who people are based on what we have seen or experienced with them, along with the things they have said or done.

Representative to the 114th United States Congress – District 5

Doug Lamborn
We will be voting for Doug. We know he is a lawyer and has been elected to multiple offices. He would probably be the first to tell you that he is not perfect, but he is the best Colorado has in Washington D.C. at this time (Heritage Action – HA Scorecard is 85% for this year while the House Republican Scorecard Average is 63%). There are three other Republican congressmen from Colorado: Mike Coffman (HA Scorecard is 66%), Cory Gardner (HA Scorecard 65%), and Scott Tipton (HA Scorecard is 56%). We appreciate the fact that Doug reads every piece of legislation he votes on — that is very rare in Washington D.C.

According to Daniel Horowitz’s article, “House Leaders Pass Another Bill With Democrat Support,” Doug is the only one of the four who did not join John Boehner and Eric Cantor’s unholy alliance with the Democrats to pass the following legislation:
• May 18, 2014 Electrify Africa Act (corporate welfare bank to subsidize foreign investment) – Coffman and Gardner voted yes
• Feb 28, 2013 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (unconstitutional program including a number of social engineering provisions and violations of due process) – Coffman, Gardner and Tipton voted yes
• Apr 9, 2013 Update to American Battlefield Protection Program (preservation pork to the states to buy more land) – Coffman and Tipton voted yes
• Oct 16, 2013 October Continuing Resolution Funding Obamacare and Raising the Debt Ceiling without limit – Coffman, Gardner and Tipton voted yes

We want to clarify something his opponent said at the 5th CD Assembly. Doug did vote for the second attempt on the farm bill, and although it violated Heritage Action’s position on the bill because it made permanent farm policies that harm consumers and taxpayers (i.e., the sugar program), it did not contain $750 billion in food stamp spending like the previous one that he did not vote for. While this second vote is discouraging from Heritage’s viewpoint and ours, unlike what some of our critics claim, we do not expect perfection and would encourage Doug to use resources like the Heritage Foundation and take their perspective of legislation into consideration before he votes. Even though we also saw one of his other budget votes as a trap by the corrupt Republican House leadership team, we believe he sincerely thought he was doing the right thing for the military. We stand by our earlier statement: Doug is Colorado’s best for Washington D.C.

We encourage Doug to stay firm on blocking any and all amnesty and/or immigration reform legislation
– Given Mexico’s treatment of our veterans
– Despite the blackmail threat of a “humanitarian crisis” from all the children they are currently sending across the border
– In the face of President Obama’s refusal to follow laws he ideologically opposes
– We hope and pray that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s endorsement of Doug does not mean he has agreed to do otherwise on immigration

We encourage Doug to help lead the congressional charge to stop the implementation of unconstitutional regulations from all the President’s agencies
– Especially the EPA’s current attempt to shut down coal-fired energy plants through cap and trade regulations which are not based on any scientific facts
o There has been no global warming for almost the last two decades
o As we all learned in elementary science, the plants on our planet require CO2 to grow

We finally want to encourage Doug to do everything possible to:
– Defund Obamacare
– Pursue justice in the IRS and Benghazi scandals
– Reduce federal spending through privatizing the VA medical care system and getting rid of government departments that have no constitutional basis

We too are fed up with the Republican-controlled House not being the roadblock to President Obama that they were elected to be and for not exercising the power they have been given in the Constitution to stop an out-of-control executive branch. House Republicans should not be waiting for future election results to the job they were elected to do now. The House holds the purse strings and any government agency can be brought to its knees when its funding disappears. We would encourage Doug and the rest of the Republicans to stop hoping that the media or Democrats will be their friends or like them – all of them are in Congress to represent “we the people” and do what is best for our country. Finally, if John Boehner cannot accomplish these things, he needs to go as the Speaker, along with the rest of his leadership team.

Bentley Rayburn
We have observed Bentley Rayburn at many County and State Assemblies over the years. We have found that we are usually on a different side of the Republican Party than he is. He has run for this office twice before and is taking great advantage of the distain many have for the spinelessness of the Republicans in Washington D.C. While he has convinced many well-intentioned voters this time around that he would do a better job than Doug Lamborn, we just don’t agree.

If he is as conservative as he claims, why is he challenging the most conservative congressman from Colorado? There are so many other offices with full-blown progressives in them. Why isn’t he running for one of those? If he is the leader and Christian he claims to be, why hasn’t he come along side Doug Lamborn to help strengthen him instead of criticize him?

Mr. Rayburn’s arguments about seniority and leadership might sound good on the surface, but the reality is that seniority is how Congress runs. Only through seniority do you get control of committees and thereby control legislation. Doug is a bona fide conservative working his way toward leadership. He is next in seniority to be the Chairman of the Veteran Affairs Committee. It is particularly unwise to change your congressman and elect someone who might not even be appointed to that committee or to the very important House Armed Services Committee (which Doug is also on).

At the 5th CD Assembly, Mr. Rayburn said he would be different from Doug because he would support other Republicans like Mike Coffman. This is the same Mike Coffman who gave John Boehner and Eric Cantor enough Republican votes when combined with Democrat votes to do an end run around conservative Republicans like Doug and pass the legislation that was referenced above in our comments about Doug. We can only conclude that if Mr. Rayburn supports someone who has a more liberal voting record than Doug, he certainly would not be a suitable replacement for Doug. Doug has led Colorado’s Republican contingent with his votes in Congress and we need to keep him in office.

Governor

Mike Kopp
We will be voting for Mike Kopp. We are grateful for his service as an Army Ranger and firefighter, for his support of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, for his plan to work with other governors to take back power and land from the federal government, for his fight against the Colorado Health Care exchange and Obamacare, for his promise to fight Common Core, for the law he passed to crack down on illegal immigrant felons, for the plans he has to reduce state regulations and make our state government more efficient and transparent, and for the clear priorities he showed in stepping down as the Senate Minority Leader to care for his late wife. While he did not respond to the Colorado Right to Life survey, we asked him personally about this and he told us he did support Personhood. We want to encourage Mike to not pull back from his stand on life despite any attack ads directed towards him or because of the results of any polls or ballot measures.

We hope that all Coloradoans will come to understand that: a moral nation acknowledges the humanity of those created, but not yet born and protects them until they are born; a moral nation does not elevate the voices of those already born above those who do not yet have their own voice; and that a moral nation understands that life belongs to the Creator — and that innocent human life should be valued as a reflection of Him no matter how he/she was conceived. These truths are neither fanatical nor unreasonable. They are enshrined in our nation’s Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness …” Unalienable means incapable of being withdrawn/diverted, surrendered or transferred. But that is precisely what our country has done to over 56 million Americans who have lost their unalienable Right to Life through abortion since 1973. It is no coincidence that the unalienable Right to Life was listed first. Without Life, the rest is of no consequence.

Scott Gessler
We wished Secretary Gessler would have run for re-election instead of for Governor. He was doing a good job restoring the integrity of our state’s voting system. He did not respond to the Colorado Right to Life survey and they do not consider him a supporter of Personhood, which we do care about. We have asked several people about Secretary Gessler and have received vaguely non-positive feedback. That is probably attributable to Secretary Gessler ethic’s troubles.

In June 2013, the state ethics commission ruled that Secretary Gessler “breached the public trust for private gain” when he used $1,278 from the Secretary of State’s discretionary fund to travel to a Republican National Lawyers Association meeting in Florida as part of his continuing legal education credits, which are required to keep his law license valid. He was also found to have violated the state ethic’s law in 2012 when he kept $117.99 left in the same fund rather than submit receipts for what he said accounted for hundreds of dollars more for unreimbursed mileage for state business. He was penalized approximately $1,400 minus the $1,278 Secretary Gessler chose to repay in May 2013 for the trip.

While the complaint was filed in the fall 2012 by what has been described as a liberal group, Colorado Ethics Watch, for obvious partisan political points, there are a couple of troubling concerns here. There is no requirement that the Secretary of State be a lawyer so the taxpayers should not be tapped to keep his law license valid. Second, this less than $2,000 episode has cost Colorado taxpayers at least $143,000 for investigative and legal fees from both the commission AND Secretary Gessler’s office. We would humbly suggest that a lawyer follow the rules that were probably written by another lawyer in conducting the affairs of our state and that he not use the taxpayers to fix what he broke.

Tom Tancredo
How else can we put this? We believe Tom Tancredo is not an honorable man and no one should waste his or her vote on him.
When he didn’t like the results of the 2010 State Assembly or the 2010 Primary election, he left the Republican party and became the gubernatorial candidate for the American Constitution party (ACP). The only reason he garnered 36% of the vote is because Republican establishments types were infuriated with the Republicans who supported the grass roots candidate, Dan Maes, and they needed to show us that they would rather throw their vote away on another party’s nominee than allow the grass roots a victory. What was the price of their power protection politics: Governor Hickenlooper and all the horrible legislation he has signed into law (oh yes, and they almost succeeded in losing the Republican party’s major party status in the state of Colorado).

Then if that was not enough, after the dust settled, Mr. Tancredo snuck back into the Republican party. We believe many in the Republican Party will leave the party if Mr. Tancredo wins the primary because of what he did in 2010. The electorate should resoundingly reject a candidate with such little honor.

For those of you who consider yourselves Constitutional conservatives, Mr. Tancredo’s votes for federal gun-control legislation in 1999 and TARP in 2008 should be very concerning to you. Finally, in 2010, as the ACP candidate, he decided it was “conservative” to support the legalization of recreational marijuana (don’t forget his promise to smoke a joint should it pass). It is truly a world upside down when supposed “conservatives” join forces with funding from George Soros to keep the citizens of Colorado in a drug-induced haze or the victims of those who are. And make no mistake, the victims are racking up:
– Since the beginning of recreational pot sales, Colorado Children’s Hospital reported nine children were seen for ingesting marijuana-laced food, six of those being critically ill
– 4th graders selling/smoking marijuana at school
– A 19-year-old college student from Wyoming jumping to his death after eating a marijuana cookie
– A Denver man who fatally shot his wife after eating pot candy
– Almost weekly reports of explosions in homes from people making hash oil
– Fatal car crashes with at least one driver testing positive for marijuana increasing from 4.5% in 1994, before the passage of medicinal marijuana in Colorado, to 10% in the last six months of 2011 — before the legalization of recreational pot (from a University of Colorado School of Medicine study)

We’ve officially lost our minds as a state, when smoking a cigarette has been largely banned publicly because it is dangerous for you and anyone in your proximity, but smoking pot is great! Our country was not founded on the premise that individuals have the reckless freedom to “do what is right in their own eyes.” Our form of government cannot work for those who believe this because it was designed for “a moral people.”
Only the self-absorbed demand their individual “freedoms” regardless of the cost to those more vulnerable in our society. America used to be better than that because we used to care about the things of God more than we do today. And do not forget, big government is looking for ways to make their job of trying to control every aspect your life easier and they would be happy to have you checked out on drugs to accomplish that. Can we please stop this insanity?

Bob Beauprez
There we were in 2006 at our first Colorado State Assembly. Bob Beauprez handily defeated Marc Holzman and had a clear field for the General Election against Democrat Bill Ritter. Then in September, we are listening to the news and hear that Mr. Beauprez was proposing a tax increase (from a September 9th Rocky Mountain News article). He wanted to replace Colorado’s 22-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax (expected to generate $514 million that year) with a sales tax increase from 2.9 percent to 3.7 percent (expected to generate $516 million that year) to fund road improvements. He claimed it would be revenue neutral, but the whole point was to increase money for road improvements and over the long term it would mean a tax increase for the citizens of Colorado. We knew then, the race for governor was lost. Given the track record of government and taxes, we were most likely going to end up with both the increased 3.7% sales tax and the 22-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. Other voters instinctively knew this also and Mr. Beauprez did lose by 15 points. His inability to articulate a solid position on Referendums C (5 year end run around TABOR spending limits so the state could keep money it should have refunded to the taxpayer) and D (state request to borrow $2.072 billion) in 2005 should have been a hint of what was to come.

This time he is resurrecting his 2006 moniker, “Both Ways Bob,” with answers about Personhood and the individual healthcare mandate. ColoradoPols found a 2007 op-ed piece from Beauprez equating the mandated purchase of health insurance with car insurance when endorsing Mitt Romney for President in 2008. If Colorado has any hope of surviving what Republicans in Denver did to us in 2011 when they passed SB11-200 (Colorado’s implementation of Obamacare’s healthcare exchanges), we need a governor who will act with conviction to undo this disaster and Mr. Beauprez is not that governor. He tried in 2006. He lost. Nothing has changed with him since that time. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past with a governor who is even more popular among the progressives in our state than Governor Ritter was.

State Representative – District 15

Gordon Klingenschmitt
David Williams
We are still undecided on how we would vote in this race if we lived in this district. We do have a couple of concerns with both candidates about their responses to a survey from the Campaign for Liberty. Both will support legislation to end warrantless drone surveillance. Their agreement is fine if this question refers to U.S. citizens in the United States (but the question does not specify). It is a whole different matter if it includes how we conduct military operations overseas. Both will also support a bill that would protect a citizen’s 4th amendment rights, which we agree with, except for the part of the question that wants the bill to force the State to obtain a warrant prior to forcing a citizen to undergo a blood test … for minor offenses such as traffic. Are both saying that the police should not have a way to confirm the impairment of those drivers who are driving under the influence, whether it is alcohol or drugs? This is very concerning to us. It is a sad situation that two professing Christians are running for the same office when there are so many other opportunities out there. To the best of our knowledge, these two candidates have the same positions on all major issues that they will be voting on in the State House.

State Representative – District 20

This race started with a debacle at the County Assembly: ballots for the only two contested House District races were switched, there were numerous time delays, and the ballots that were cast were mishandled (to include counting ballots that had not been properly signed in as required because of the switch). All of these irregularities enabled Terri Carver to be the only candidate to make it onto the ballot at the County Assembly. The other three candidates on your primary ballot bypassed the assembly process and petitioned onto the ballot. No matter which of these candidates wins, they will need to be watched and communicated with on a regular basis to ensure that you are represented in Denver.

Terri Carver
Terri Carver is an adjunct environmental law professor with UC Denver. She worked as an environmental attorney for the Air Force for 14 years and most recently served as Chair of the Colorado Springs Utilities Policy Advisory Committee. We would be very concerned with her if she did not support the continued operation of Martin Drake, which would devastate the affordability of energy in our city, but we have not been able to verify her position on this. She did not respond to the Colorado Right to Life survey. The overall consensus of those who have spoken to her is that she will say what you want to hear and that she avoids answering certain questions. While this may be typical modus operandi for politicians, we are looking for something better: a strong principled leader with a solid foundation in biblical truth.

Dan Stanforth
Dan Stanforth is a young man who lives with his parents and has earned a Masters in Linguistic and Literary Investigations from Valencia, Spain. Mr. Stanforth is endorsed by the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition and supported by Jeff Crank. He did not respond to the Colorado Right to Life survey. We had a particularly nasty encounter with his campaign manager who refused to respond to our candidate questions on behalf of Mr. Stanforth. Perhaps the candidate doesn’t know that the person interceding on his behalf is arrogant and dismissive, but regardless if he knows or not, the last thing we need are legislators who surround themselves with such people.

Miles Dewhirst
Miles Dewhirst is an attorney who ran for City Council in 2010. During that campaign, he opposed Issue 300 (eliminated our unconstitutional storm water “fees”), which passed, and supported Issue 2C (would have raised our property taxes) which failed (http://gazette.com/city-council-candidates-miles-dewhirst/article/63093). This seems to be in direct opposition to his current campaign pledge to “Empower Individuals and Expand Freedom.” We believe one of the ways government limits our freedom is by demanding more taxes and then mismanaging what we pay them. We will never get smaller government if we continue to feed their appetite for our money. He did not respond to the Colorado Right to Life survey. We are also concerned about what we’ve been told by people we consider reliable and who know Mr. Dewhirst personally. Their overall impression is that he lacks integrity.

Kristen Selzer
Kristen Selzer is the only candidate not backed by the establishment in this race. For this reason, we would lean towards voting for her if we lived in this district. She is a retired History professor, who currently owns a small business. Colorado Right to Life says she has rigorously affirmed that she is pro-life and she is endorsed by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. From our conversation with her, we believe her to be a solid Christian. While she appears to be solidly conservative on the issues of limited government, property rights, education, labor unions, guns, health care, parental rights, religious freedom, marriage, and the respect for life, we believe Kristen lacks a biblical understanding on the issues of marijuana and the death penalty.

County Treasurer

Duncan Bremer
Mr. Bremer has awarded himself the title, Champion of Taxpayers, and this should be very concerning to every voter. Titles like this are usually awarded by organizations that have evaluated a politician’s record. We could find no evidence of this. Does a “Champion of Taxpayers” tell you upfront that he is going to be spending a whole lot of the taxpayers’ money if he wins? According to his website, under Issues and then Service to the Public: “The Treasurer’s office is currently still operating on a computer system referred to as the VAX. That system was obsolete when I became a County Commissioner in 1995. The next Treasurer will need to obtain the resources and oversee the transition to the next generation of technology.” Just to be clear, the county’s Treasurer’s office does not operate in a vacuum. Technology changes in the Treasurer’s office will necessitate technology changes in other county offices, which the Treasurer’s system is connected to — resulting in even more costs to the taxpayer!

We know Duncan from dealings with him in the Republican party and it is our opinion that he represents so many of the things that are wrong with the Republican party today. We have observed him and his family engage in what we consider some pretty despicable political activities, including baseless character assassinations of Republicans who do not pass his “litmus test of issues” and are therefore not deemed “legitimate” Republicans. In our opinion, he is not honorable or trustworthy in what we have seen him do and heard him say, and we would never give our votes to him for any office.

Mark Lowderman
We will be voting for Mark. He has been our County Assessor since 2007 when there were 70 employees managing 200,000 parcels of property. He will be leaving the County Assessor’s office with 50 employees managing 260,000 parcels of property. Finding efficiencies is an extremely rare accomplishment in today’s government. For that alone, he deserves our vote. We also found an article from July 15, 2009, that described the state of affairs in the County Assessor’s office when the El Paso County Commissioner’s eliminated Mr. Lowderman’s travel budget (but not their own). El Paso appraisers need regular training to keep their licenses so that they can assess real estate properly and calculate the required taxes to be collected. Mr. Lowderman’s 21 appraisers were having to pay out of pocket for lodging and meals at the training in Breckenridge while County Commissioners like Sallie Clark spent $5,600 for non-training meetings in Washington D.C., Fort Myers, Fla., Vail, and Austin, Texas. He is also the only Treasurer candidate who supported elimination of the “business personal property tax.” Finally, we’ve been reliably told that he has been a proactive County Assessor, regularly scanning the newspaper/news reports for property damage articles so that he would be prepared to make assessment adjustments in a timely manner. Mr. Lowderman is moving from one elected office to another and we would usually discourage that. However, we believe this is an uncommon instance where you would want to vote for someone who leaves an office better than he found it and rightly understands that you, the taxpayer, are “the boss.”

 

November 2013 Election for El Paso County

Ballots for this election were supposed to be mailed out on October 15 so, hopefully, all of you have received your ballots. They must be turned in by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day, Tuesday, November 5, 2013, to be counted.

As a reminder, we evaluate from a Christian perspective first and a political one second. While many believe this is politically naïve and, some might say, a foolish strategy, we believe that God will bless our city, county, state, and nation when we uncompromisingly stand for His principles. We are presenting to you how we will vote or would vote if we lived in the different districts.

There are many proposals on this ballot to raise taxes on hard-working families. We do not support any of them. This is not because we oppose good roads or firemen. Without exception, local governments have refused to make hard choices. Families, who have lost jobs, taken pay cuts or seen their buying power decrease, have had to make those hard choices. Until our governments prioritize their existing funds and cut wasteful spending, we will not support taxes that take money from hard-working families who are already struggling in this economy.

Once again, the ballot reflects a lack of concern by those of us who call ourselves conservative. Every elected office on the ballot should give the people a choice between what is progressive and what is constitutional and conservative. Today, we see the conservative label being applied to what has not been traditionally defined as conservative and it is very frustrating. When we evaluated the people running for school boards and city councils, we were concerned with the worldview they are bringing to the table. Every elected official, regardless of the office they hold, will influence our morality as a community/county. So we believe that the moral standards of candidates matter. Some of those who responded to us objected to these questions. We would gently remind those candidates that if you are on a ballot asking for votes, you don’t get to pick the questions that matter to the voters. If it matters to us and you want our vote, you should answer the question. While we might not agree with some of those who did answer our questions, we appreciated and respected their willingness to stand on their belief systems.
In our ballot choices, we did not recommend anyone whose contact information was not readily accessible. We did not list the names of those people we definitely would not vote for. If we are aware of their affiliation, we do not support candidates from cults like the Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons. We support candidates who:

• Believe life is created in the image of God and is therefore not to be disposed of for the convenience of those people already born
• Believe God created the institution of marriage between one man and one woman as the primary unit on which all of society is founded.
• Oppose the legalization of marijuana
• Oppose progressive tax structures
• Oppose the agenda of radically progressive teacher organizations, which are more interested in ideology than education
• Oppose the agenda of the Home Builder’s Association, which is more concerned with their own profit than with the welfare of students
• Oppose federally-mandated Common Core requirements
• Protect our children’s First Amendment rights on school campuses
• Understand parental authority has primacy over school officials in making medical/vaccination decisions for our children

No matter how frustrating this ballot may or may not be to you, please vote. It is the LOUDEST your voice gets in our government. It does take time and effort, but there is a motivated opposition who will only be defeated by each of us voting. They want to collect your money through taxes and they want their liberal, progressive candidate to be your lawmaker. Each ballot is an opportunity for you to have a say in the kind of government we will all live under. Your government starts on the school boards and city councils. Make sure that your vote is part of the roadblock that stops those who want to “fundamentally change” America.

WHAT WILL BE ON EVERYONE’S BALLOT

State Initiated Constitutional Amendment
Amendment 66 (Income tax increase for education) – NO
This tax hike was placed on the ballot by last year’s Democrat legislature. Because of TABOR, the Democrats could not increase our taxes on their own; they have to ask for our permission. Don’t give it! This tax hike is onerous – an additional $1.12 billion a year. According to our calculations, based on 2011 filings, to raise this amount of money, every taxpayer will have to pay an additional $468 in taxes – that’s $936 additional for each married couple. It replaces Colorado’s flat income tax of 4.63 percent of federal adjusted gross income with a two-bracket system: Under $75,000 is 5.0% and over $75,000 is 5.9%. It also mandates that 43% of all state sales, excise and income tax revenue be spent on public schools in each and every year. If costs for education decrease or children needing education decrease, this spending rate for public schools will continue unabated because it was constitutionally-mandated. This is the model used for all major federal entitlements (Welfare, Social Security, WIC, Medicare). Entitlements consume two-thirds of our federal budget with mandatory increases each year, which has actually bankrupted us as a country – it just hasn’t caught up with us yet. As happens at the national level, fraud and corruption will be rampant. Let’s not make this tragic mistake for our state. For more details about this financial disaster, see this report by the Independence Institute: http://tax.i2i.org/files/2013/10/IP_7_2013_d_web.pdf.

State Referred Statutory Proposition
Proposition AA (Tax structure for marijuana) – YES
On previous ballot commentary, we have expressed our absolute opposition to the sale of marijuana (both medical and recreational). We have not changed that opposition. We also oppose taxes because they take much-needed money from the families who earned it and usually squander it on government. We also understand that if the government taxes an item, that item is more likely to become less available or goes away altogether. For that reason, we are supporting this proposition. Until we can reverse the legalization of marijuana, we believe that its taxation will reduce availability and sales in our county and state. We do so though with the clear knowledge that the collateral damage from legalization of marijuana will far exceed the taxes that could ever be collected on it.

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR MONUMENT
Municipality Questions or Issues
5C – Monument Sanitation District – NO
This is not a tax increase, but a request to waive CO’s constitutional TABOR requirements to return excess money to the taxpayer. Government wants to keep and use the excess money from these state grants. Remember, federal and state money comes out of your pockets as well.

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN
County Questions or Issues
1C – Pioneer Village Roads Public Improvement District – NO
An ad valorem property tax increase for the newly created district (if 1D passes) to pay for maintenance and upgrading of roads for the new district. 1D has to pass in order for 1C tax increases to occur.
1D – Pioneer Village Roads Public Improvement District – NO
Creates a new district within El Paso County (currently privately owned) for the purpose of maintaining and upgrading roads. Another layer of bureaucracy – need less of these, not more!

Municipality Questions or Issues
2B – City of Fountain – NO
Property tax increase of $39.90 per year for each $100,000 of property owned to pay for fire protection, emergency response and ambulance service.
2C – City of Fountain – NO
This is not a tax increase, but a request to waive CO’s constitutional TABOR requirements to return excess money to the taxpayer. Government wants to keep and use the excess money from these state grants. Remember, federal and state money comes out of your pockets as well.
2D – City of Fountain – YES
Prohibits the use of smart meter technology to collect anything but the amount of energy used.

City of Fountain Mayor (vote for one)
Darrell Couch – If we lived here, he is the only one we would contact to determine if we could vote for him; mayor2013@q.com; www.couchformayor.com

City of Fountain Council Member – Ward 1 (vote for one)
Don Grubbs – If we lived here, he is the only one we would contact to determine if we could vote for him; 382-8744; djmackenz05@comcast.net

City of Fountain Council Member – Ward 3 (vote for one)
Doris Fukerson – If we lived here, she is the only one we would contact to determine if we could vote for her; 659-4541; defulkerson@yahoo.com

City of Fountain Council Member – At Large (vote for one)
Sam Heckman – If we lived here, he is one of the two who we would contact to determine if we could vote for him; 492-0373
Greg Lauer – If we lived here, he is one of the two who we would contact to determine if we could vote for him; 357-9121; greg@greg4fountain.com; www.greg4fountain.com

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR MANITOU SPRINGS
Municipality Questions or Issues
2A – City of Manitou Springs – YES
Immediate 5% sales tax on marijuana with a future sales tax increase to 10%

Mayor of Manitou Springs – There is only one choice and we would not vote for him because he is an attorney (too many in government) and he would not identify his position on marijuana for political reasons.

City of Manitou Springs City Council Ward One – There is only one choice and we would not vote for her.
City of Manitou Springs City Council Ward Two – There is only one choice and we would not vote for her.
City of Manitou Springs City Council Ward Three (vote for one)
David Walker – If we lived here, he is the only one we would contact to determine if we could vote for him; 685-2307; dwwalker35@yahoo.com

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR HARRISON SCHOOL DISTRICT 2
Harrison School District 2 Director (Four Year Term) (vote for three)
Ryan Thompson – While he sent us a response, he did not answer our questions so, if we lived here, we would have to contact him to determine if we could vote for him; 357-6607; ryanethompson@me.com

Harrison School District 2 Director (Two Year Term)
There is only one choice and we would not vote for her.

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR FREMONT RE-2 SCHOOL DISTRICT
Fremont Re-2 School District Director – District D (vote for one)
No contact information available for either candidate

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR WIDEFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT 3
Widefield School District 3 Director (Four Year Term) (vote for three)
Susan Waller Graham – If we lived here, she is the only one we would contact to determine if we could vote for her; 391-7052; skwgram@msn.com

Widefield School District 3 Director (Two Year Term)
Martin Kuhn – If we lived here, he is the only one we would contact to determine if we could vote for him; 205-1283; kuhnlawoffice@aol.com

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR FOUNTAIN-FORT CARSON DISTRICT 8
County Questions or Issues
1A – Stratmoor Valley Streetlight Public Improvement District – NO
An ad valorem property tax increase for the newly created district (if 1B passes) to pay for operation and maintenance of streetlights for the new district. 1B has to pass in order for 1A tax increases to occur.

1B – Stratmoor Valley Streetlight Public Improvement District – NO
Creates a new district within El Paso County (bordered by Interstate 25 to the west Academy Blvd to the south and U.S. 85-87 to the north and east) for the purpose of operating and maintaining streetlights. Another layer of bureaucracy – need less of these, not more!

Fountain-Fort Carson School District 8 Director (vote for two)
Suzanne Clark Foster (Incumbent) – If we lived here, she is the only one we would contact to determine if we could vote for her; 382-5863; fosterfam3@comcast.net; s.foster@ffc8.org

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 11
Colorado Springs School District 11 Director (vote for three)
Al Loma (Incumbent) – We did not have contact information for him, but we talked to him when he ran for City Council. He is supposed to be opposed to Amendment 66, but did not state that in the surveys we looked at. He is a pastor at Victory Outreach and a counselor with a B.S. in Public Administration.
Charlie Bobbitt* – He has stated that he is opposed to Amendment 66, but is endorsed by the HBA; He is a past school board member; Charlie_Bobbitt@yahoo.com

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 20
Municipality Questions or Issues
5A – Donald Wescott Fire Protection District – NO
Property tax increase for the general fund – never vote for something labeled one way, but then specified in the bill language for the district’s general fund unless the general fund is only used for fire protection and you can afford to lose more of your income.

Academy School District 20 Director (vote for three)
Linda Van Matre (Incumbent) – While she is does not support the constitutional aspect of Amendment 66, she is endorsed by HBA; 528-1634, talktolinda@q.com; www.voteforlindad20.com
Andrea Van Nort – While she is against Amendment 66, she is pro-choice for the first 3 months, thinks it is discrimination to define marriage constitutionally, and is endorsed by HBA; 323-0624; vannort4d20@gmail.com

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR ELLICOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT 22
Ellicott School District 22 Director (Four Year Term) (vote for three)
No responses so please contact yourself to determine if you can support with your vote
Beatrice M. Twiss – 683-3321; dean.bea.twiss@elpasotel.net
Michael Dahn – 338-6782; eaglesct00@aol.com
Gary Dahn – 338-6750; mstrgnr89@aol.com

Ellicott School District 22 (Two Year Term) (vote for one)
Robert McWilliams – If we lived here, he is the only one we would contact to determine if we could vote for him; 683-3846; industrial_repair_service@ yahoo.com

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR PEYTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 23JT
Peyton School District 23JT Director (vote for three)
Mea Armstrong Miller – If we lived here, she is one of the three we would contact to determine if we could vote for her; meamiller1@live.com
Bart Hanks – If we lived here, he is one of the three we would contact to determine if we could vote for him; bartdb1@msn.com
David B. Brown – If we lived here, he is one of the three we would contact to determine if we could vote for him; info@Politiculous.com

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT 28
Hanover School District 28 Director (vote for two)
No responses so please contact yourself to determine if you can support with your vote
Cathie Salmon-Wolff (Incumbent) – 382-5714; jcwolff60@msn.com
Mark A. McPherson –683-7310; mcperson@elpastotel.net; mmcpherson@hanoverhornets.org
Dale A. Koehler Jr. – 494-4754; dmtcdk@msn.com
Terry L. Siewiyumptewa – 683-4611; tsiewiyumptewa@elpasotel.net
Edward Albert Sweazy – 683-3352; easweazy@yahoo.com

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 38
Municipality Questions or Issues
3A – Lewis-Palmer School District 38 – NO
Property tax increase of $83.58 per year for each $100,000 of property owned for education

Lewis-Palmer School District 38 Board of Education Director – District 1
No candidates

Lewis-Palmer School District 38 Board of Education Director – District 3 – There is only one choice and we did not have contact information for him.

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 49
Falcon School District 49 Director (vote for three)
John Graham – We would need to clarify his moral positions, but we are pretty sure we would vote for him; 310-1571; johngraham3@q.com
David H. Moore – While he is on the record against Amendment 66, he is endorsed by HBA; 799-6757; 573-8550; committeetoelectdavidmoore@gmail.com
Kevin Butcher – While he is supposedly against Amendment 66, he is endorsed by HBA; 233-2313; Kevin@cameronbutcher.com
Henry D. Allen, Jr (Incumbent) – He is supposedly against Amendment 66, but we could not find much on him, so we would contact him to determine whether or not to vote for him; 661-8993; hallenjrboe@gmail.com; hallenjr@d49.org

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR MIAMI-YODER SCHOOL DISTRICT JT-60
Miami-Yoder School District JT-60 Director (vote for three)
No responses so please contact to determine if you can support with your vote
David R. Orcutt – 355-6229; david.orcutt@hotmail.com
Tami Sisneros – 359-1258; tami704@live.com
Kevin D. Gregg – 478-2500; akgregg33@msn.com
Lyle Batton – lylebatton@gmail.com
Bo Wade McKnight – 659-5175; mcknight.desiree@gmail.com
Dean P. Strouse – 478-3123; strouseframing@elpasotel.net

ADDITIONAL BALLOT FOR BIG SANDY SCHOOL DISTRICT 100J
Big Sandy School District 100J Director (vote for two)
No contact information available for any of the candidates

2013 Colorado Springs City Election

As a reminder, we evaluate from a Christian perspective first and a political one second.

BALLOT ISSUES

For the ballot issues, we are opposed to measures that promote reckless, unchecked spending because we do not believe that is being a good steward of the money taken from the incomes of hard-working families.  What you earn is your private property and while government has Constitutional responsibilities, government should be the most responsible with the money they ask from us to accomplish their limited role.   It is not.  Both of us have worked for our government in defense-related arenas.  We love our country, but we know first hand how recklessly the government spends the money it extracts from each of our incomes.

Issue 1 (Move Designated Tax Funds to the General Fund) – NO

While this does not increase our taxes, it is a deceptively worded measure.  It essentially asks you to approve using a portion (up to a maximum of 20%) of a tax that is already being collected for something other than it was intended when you originally approved the tax.  While we believe the city needs more money for the maintenance of our current parks and would prefer decreasing the amount of money TOPS uses for acquiring new parks to pay for that maintenance, this measure does not ensure that the city will use the money for park maintenance and therefore, we are opposed to this measure.  Park supporters tried to place restrictions on the ballot measure to ensure that the City Council would use the money for the intended purposes, but it was not supported by the current City Council or Mayor Bach.  The reality is this money will not be restricted in any way to the use indicated in the ballot measure language.  It will go into the General Fund to be used however the Council and Mayor deem fit.  Trails and Opens Spaces (TOPS) is also opposed to this ballot measure (http://www.trailsandopenspaces.org/).

Issue 2 (Raise City Council Salary) – NO

Fifty percent of the Mayor’s salary is approximately $48,000 for each of the 9 Council members (which does not include the pensions they want to add).  Where will this additional almost half a million dollars come from?  No one who supports it knows.  That means you, as a city taxpayer, will be asked to pay this bill.  Can your budget afford that?  The city is currently working on final job descriptions for City Council members so they are asking you to increase their salaries before it has been determined exactly what they will be doing.  That’s a great deal for them, but not so much for you who will be financing the increase.  Finally, three or more people are running for each seat in each district.  It doesn’t seem that the current $6,250 per member was much of a disincentive for anyone.

CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES

The City Council member portion of your ballot will depend on which City Council District you live in.  As we researched and put this together, our hearts are heavy knowing that none of the men or women asking for your vote will be able to accomplish what needs to be done to turn this city around.  It is our belief that many of the candidates are saying what they think they need to say to get elected and a few do not have a real grasp of the issues.  No man or woman will ever perfectly align with your beliefs, but we can and should ask that they display integrity in all their dealings on our behalf.

We have attended three candidate forums and have spoken directly to several of the candidates.  One thing we cannot sufficiently convey to you is the demeanor of the candidates as we interacted with them, so we hope that you will personally contact a candidate whom you are considering voting for and ask him or her questions that are important to you.  Whoever you decide to vote for, if they are privileged enough to get elected, please, hold them accountable.

We have not provided information for the Democrats (Linda Mojer and Joe Berrara both in District 1), the Green Party candidate (Bob Kinsey in District 3), the felon who will not be able to hold office if elected (Gary Flakes in District 4), and the two candidates who have dropped out of the race after the ballots were printed (Bill Murray in District 2 and Tom Gallagher in District 3).  Following are concerns we have at the city level.

MARIJUANA

We are very disappointed as moms and Christians that none of the candidates running strongly felt that they could support using our city’s home rule option to ban the use and sale of marijuana.  Even among those who say they support banning it, many of them qualify that that’s their position only until the state determines the regulations for this drug.  How many businesses will want to come to a city full of drug addicts?  How many families will be wiped out on our roads by drug-addicted drivers?  How many children will be exposed to this leading gateway drug simply because of its easy availability?  Where is the wisdom and common sense in any of this?  If you do contact the candidates, please let them know how important banning marijuana within the city limits is to the future of you, your family and our city.

HOMOSEXUAL ISSUES

While many of the more “conservative” candidates say they support one man, one woman marriage, they also say they accept our state’s new civil union statutes and this is America and you can do what you want.  That is not the premise our county was founded on.  This new statute is the first step to dismantling marriage in our state, because it is an exact mirror of marriage under the name civil unions, which overturns what we voted for in 2006.  In addition, with the passage of this bill, everyone in Colorado has lost their 1^st Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  To believe what God says about marriage and homosexuality and put those beliefs into practice (Matt 7:24) in your business or your church makes you now guilty of discrimination in the state of Colorado.  If you do contact the candidates, please let them know that you do not appreciate their complicity in stripping you of your freedom of religion and that you want your constitutionally guaranteed freedoms back at least here in our city.

2^nd AMENDMENT

You are also being stripped at the state level of your 2^nd Amendment rights; however, you will be glad to know that a majority of the candidates below would entertain using home rule to protect our city from as many of these unconstitutional state regulations as they can.

ENVIRONMENTAL

Then there is the Drake Power Plant.  There is a huge battle over whether or not the city will sell Drake.  If they do, you will pay double or triple what you are paying now for your electricity.  Many of the candidates say they do not support selling Drake because of the increase in costs to us, the rate payers, but then their connections and endorsements make their comments suspect.

ENDORSEMENTS

Finally, we do not believe the developers in our town (Home Builders Association – HBA) have the overall welfare of the city as a priority and are highly concerned about candidates endorsed by them.  We support a business-friendly City Council (decreased regulations, tax breaks, etc.), but we do not believe that doing what the developers want to do in this city should be the overriding rationale behind many of the City Council’s decision.  We are also concerned about candidates endorsed by COS Utilities and the Gazette.

Because of what we have seen, heard, and know, we cannot recommend any of the listed candidates.  We are not recommending that you do not vote.  Just know that you most likely will not be getting what you expect.  Above all, pray for wisdom and mercy because we will need it moving forward.

DISTRICT 1

Don Knight:  Retired Air Force officer, 719-532-9369, http://www.donknightford1.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – No

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements: COS Utilities, the Gazette

Our Comments:  Was very willing to listen and consider other positions.  Took time to explain issues, as he understood them.  Would rather use money from finding ways to increase revenues for the city, but will let the voters decide on tax increases by voting to put them on the ballot.  Would modify the running of COS Utilities.  Seems to be motivated in part by what was best for his family as opposed to what is best for the city.

 

Tim Leigh:  Independent and Incumbent, 719-337-9551, http://www.timleigh.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Yes

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements:  HBA

Our comments:  He was the Council member who initially recommended a salary hike for Council members, but now feels it should just be for the Council President.  Overly emotional about his vote in support of fracking (a method for extracting oil which is opposed by environmentalists, but has the potential to provide a lot of good paying jobs).

 

Julie Naye:  Mother of four, 719-481-0909, no website

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Yes

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements:  None known

Our comments:  Claims to be a fiscal conservative, but said in a response that she “probably” wouldn’t raise taxes.  Told us she was not a social conservative.

DISTRICT 2

Angela Dougan:  Incumbent, 719-650-0058, http://www.angeladougan.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Yes

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements:  HBA

Our Comments:  We are concerned about her connections with the Mayor and her lack of clarity in responses.

Joel Miller:  719-548-9663, http://www.electjoelmiller.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – No

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements:  COS Utilities, the Gazette, Bill Murray

Our Comments:  Did not attend forums.

DISTRICT 3

Jim Bensberg:  Previous County Commissioner (2003-2010), 719-632-2638, http://www.bensbergforcouncil.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Unknown

Issue 2 (salary increase) – Unknown

Endorsements:  COS Utilities, Sheriff Maketa

Our Comments:  Wants to wait for study results before committing to whether or not he would be willing to keep or sell Drake.

Keith King:  Previous State Senator and House member, 719-576-6149, http://www.keithking.org

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Unknown

Issue 2 (salary increase) – Unknown

Endorsements:  HBA, the Gazette, Colorado Springs Police Association, Tom Gallagher

Our Comments:  Says he does not support closing Drake for at least another 10 years and also supports keeping the City Council as the board for the COS Utilities since they are elected and therefore accountable to us.  Will ban marijuana until the regulations come out of legislature and then wants to restrict zoning and tax it.

Brandy Williams:  Incumbent, 719-650-8293, http://www.brandywilliams.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Unknown

Issue 2 (salary increase) – Unknown

Endorsements:  Richard Skorman

Our Comments:  Her connection to Richard Skorman is a huge problem.  She is an incumbent at-large member who lost her status because of the last city vote on that and less than a year ago moved into District 3 to run as its representative.  Not who she claimed to be when running the first time and, as a result, lost the endorsement of David Schultheis.  In our opinion, she needs to go.

DISTRICT 4

Helen Collins:  Retired military, 719-538-4458, no website

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – No

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements:  None known

Our Comments:  Supports TABOR.

 

Deborah Hendrix:  719-271-2411, http://www.deborahhendrix.org

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Unknown

Issue 2 (salary increase) – Unknown

Endorsements:  HBA, the Gazette

Our Comments:  Did not attend forums.

Dennis Moore:  Retired military, 719-638-7241, http://www.dennismoore-ccd4.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Yes

Issue 2 (salary increase) – Yes

Endorsements:  COS Utilities

Our Comments:  Voted against legalization of marijuana, but will make it “work” for the city so does oppose a ban.  Didn’t seem to have a problem wanting more money from the taxpayers in all the districts to provide jobs and bus service for his district.

DISTRICT 5

Jill Gaebler:  719-229-0028, http://www.jillgaebler.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Unknown

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements:  None known

Our Comments:  Openly and proudly supports Colorado being a progressive state and wants everyone to embrace “our brothers and sisters” in the homosexual community and the new civil unions law.

 

Bernie Herpin:  Incumbent, 719-596-3921, http://www.bernie4council.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Unknown

Issue 2 (salary increase) – Yes (but does not like the way it was put on the ballot)

Endorsements:  COS Utilities, the Gazette

Our Comments:  Wants to change baseline restrictions for TABOR.  Thinks the passage of civil unions was an increase in our freedoms in Colorado.

Al Loma:  Pastor, Counselor and current D-11 Board member with a B.S. in Public Administration, 719-360-4441, http://www.electalloma4council.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Unknown

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements:  HBA

Our Comments:  Supports marriage between one man and one woman, but said this was America and everyone can do what they want.  Voted against marijuana but feels bound by the vote of the people to legalize.  Not sure if he will support or oppose the sale of Drake.

Roger McCarville:  Business owner, 719-597-6731, no website

Issue 1 change in parks funding tax) – No

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements:  None known

Our Comments:  Supports TABOR.

DISTRICT 6

Ed Bircham:  Retired small business owner, 719-598-3439, http://www.edbircham.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – No

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements:  None known

Our Comments:  Supports TABOR.  Wants to use non-profits for bus service.  Wants to cut COS Utilities 10%.

 

David Moore:  Retired postal worker and pastor, 719-799-6757, http://www.dmooreforcouncil.com

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Yes

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No

Endorsements:  HBA, the Gazette

Our Comments:  Very outspoken and will take a stand, but tended to be abrasive in his manner.  Is being supported by the author of Amendment 64 (legalizing recreational marijuana) supposedly because Mr. Moore simply listened to his views.  Would find the money for bus services.

 

Andres Pico:  Retired military, 719-597-9680, http://sites.google.com/site/pico4council

Issue 1 (change in parks funding tax) – Yes

Issue 2 (salary increase) – No (feels amount should be less)

Endorsements:  COS Utilities

Our Comments:  We know Andy from the political arena and he is supported by many people in the Republican arena who are not honorable people.  He says he will not support the sale of Drake, but one of his supporters, Amy Stephens, was Majority Leader in the House when she supported and passed the environmental regulations that made Drake an issue in the first place.  Feels non-profits can better handle bus services.

Voter Guides:

Citizen Link

Click to access 2013CoSpringsExpandedVoterGuide.pdf

Endorsements:

Gazette

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/gazette-152045-candidates-endorsements.html

Independent

http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/playing-representative-roulette-in-colorado-springs/Content?oid=2641586

Home Builders Association

http://www.cshba.com/pac-endorsements.html

CS Utilities Employee Advocacy Group

http://www.csuadvocacy.com/#/council-candidates/4573950184

Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition

http://www.csindy.com/IndyBlog/archives/2013/03/11/endorsements-abound

Initial Post Election Analysis

November 7, 2012

Here we all sit.  Another four years have passed.  Another liberal Republican has lost.  And now the excuses and blaming will begin.  But it seems pretty simple to us:  Americans lean conservative.  Here was yet another election where no real differences separated the Democrat from the Republican.  Once again the pragmatists told us the best we could hope for was the lesser of two evils.  But facts don’t lie.  The fact is that 12.5 million fewer Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008.  Twelve and a half million more Americans feel disenfranchised by a party system that fails to produce viable candidates.  Republican leaders will find reasons for this loss in the days and weeks to come that have nothing to do with the fact that Mitt Romney was too liberal to appeal to the votes of conservatives in this country.  The Republican Party leadership, bolstered by numerous Christian leaders, tried to sell the snake oil that Romney was conservative because he once said so in front of an audience.  But the conservatives in America were not buying what the party had to sell.  Romney could not even attain the low standard set by John McCain in 2008, because now it has been revealed that 2.84 million fewer Republicans voted in 2012. 

Instead of understanding the vital conservative gap they face, Republican leaders will be declaring the need to move farther to the left because it seems that they came closer to winning this time.  Lindsey Graham is already laying this ground work.  Missed will be the fact that many Christians voted for Mitt Romney believing he was something he was not.  Missed will be the fact that you couldn’t possibly get a more damaged incumbent than we had.  They will ignore, even scoff at the idea that a sizable chunk of the Republican base disappears every time we put up a candidate with no conservative credentials.  It is not enough to stick an (R) next to any name and expect that person to win the Presidency because you put enough signs out or knocked on enough doors or called enough people.  Political philosophy matters.  Conservative principles matter.  Conservative governing and voting records matter.

Conservatives are done with “the lesser of two evils” type of elections and they have made that clear with Bob Dole, John McCain and, now, Mitt Romney.  They will simply not vote at all.  How many more times do we have to do this before the leadership of the Republican Party will acknowledge that they have become masters at snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory?  Victories in 2006, 2010, and 2012 should have been no-brainers, but were not possible because of the progressive liberalization of the leadership of the Republican Party.  A leadership that is now almost unrecognizable by its own base.  The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results.  Can the America we know and love survive the current insanity of the Republican Party?

It is time for change.  That change needs to happen from the bottom to top … from city to county to state to national.  Those responsible for this most devastating of losses ought to resign.  We have tried it their way long enough and it is a failure.  Across the nation, there are disaffected conservatives waiting for a party that supports them.  It is time to have party leaders and candidates who understand that Americans are conservative and they want candidates with governing records and political principles that are conservative.

It is time to win back the heart and soul of the Republican Party.  If you want a party that really believes it is better to cut government than to raise taxes; that really believes you can make better choices for your own life than the government; that really believes what is best for families outweighs diversity and reckless liberty; then you need to get involved in the coming fight over whether the Republican Party will return to our conservative roots and our conservative base and start winning again, or whether we will continue the path to becoming a twin of the Democrat Party.

“I will walk about in freedom for I have sought out Your precepts.”    Psalm 119:45

Voter Guide for the November 2012 Ballot

November 6, 2012 Ballot

October 9th was the last day to register to vote for this election.  This is a mail-in, early voting and polling place election.  If you are registered to vote in El Paso County, mail-in ballots were mailed out on October 15th.  Early voting will occur October 22nd to November 2nd at Clerk and Recorder locations.  Your polling place may have changed since you last voted so if you have questions, please contact the El Paso Clerk and Recorder at 719-575-8683.  If you are going to mail in your ballot, it will require extra postage ($0.64) and must be in the hands of the County Clerk by 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 6th.

First, we want to ask everyone to vote and to encourage your friends and family to vote.  There is an especially critical issue on this ballot:  the legalization of marijuana in Colorado by an amendment to the Colorado Constitution.  All the Libertarians, Occupy Wall Street types, and, sadly, even some Republicans are coming to the polls to make sure this passes.  We must out vote them.  The future of our state and our children depends on this.

PRESIDENTIAL

We know there is great fear and concern among those of you who are voting.  And that fear is compelling many to compromise their Christian and conservative principles by voting for the lesser of two evils (please go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rScPlpBBIA for a great Christian presentation on this issue).  Our hearts are equally heavy for our nation and we have spent many hours praying about this election, but we cannot vote for Mitt Romney for President.  If you fear Obama, you’ll vote for Romney.  If you fear God, you won’t (from: http://prolifeprofiles.com/mitt-romney-abortion).  If you want to be angry about that, be sure to direct that anger where it belongs:  the Republican Party which has once again failed American Christian conservatives for yet another critical election (1996:  Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton and 2008:  John McCain vs. Barack Obama).

We are tired of hearing from Mitt Romney supporters that he is pro-life and supports traditional marriage.  This is simply not true no matter how many times he says it or how many pledges he signs.  We must each decide if we will vote for Mitt Romney, but at least educate yourself about whom you are supporting (http://massresistance.org/romney/ and http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/the-case-against-mitt-romney/).  You will get what you vote for.  We’re not sure if Romney’s values are Mormon values, but they definitely are NOT Christian or conservative ones and it grieves our hearts to hear Christian leaders try to convince us otherwise.  It’s unfortunate that for many, Mitt Romney’s words and money have been enough to buy their endorsements.  Remember, candidates will say just about anything to get a vote.  You must examine what they have actually done.  Here are just a few lowlights from Mitt Romney’s record on life, the homosexual agenda, Boy Scouts, judicial appointments, religious rights, government controlled healthcare, cap and trade, gun control, and minimum wage:

• 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy for Massachusetts Senate seat and 2002 campaign for Governor of Massachusetts, Romney was endorsed by the homosexual group, Log Cabin Republicans, primarily based on his support for the pro-homosexual federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) according to Bay Windows (24 Oct 2002)
• 27 Oct 1994:  In Boston Globe article, “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”  On 8 Aug 2012, when the Boy Scouts announced in July that they would continue their ban on homosexual leaders, Andrea Saul, Romney’s campaign spokeswoman said Romney’s position on this issue is unchanged from 1994.
• 19 Nov 1999:  The sole Bain executive who signed for a deal investing $75 million to facilitate the growth of a medical waste company, Stericycle.  This investment allowed the company to acquire their competitor, Browning Ferris Industries, and become the top medical waste service in the U.S. and the premier disposal company of the abortion industry, servicing nearly 600 Planned Parenthood locations nationwide.  Romney made tens of millions on this deal. (http://www.stopstericycle.com/2012/08/23/css-calls-on-mitt-romney-to-withdraw-from-race-for-investing-in-company-burning-aborted-babies-and-for-remarks-supportive-of-aborting-rape-babies/)
• 2001:  Called first citizens’ petition in Massachusetts to define marriage and ban civil unions “too extreme” and “bigoted”
• 2002:  When head of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, the Boys Scouts were banned from participating as volunteers at the Olympic games.
• Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts from Jan 2003 – Jan 2007.
• 2002:  Campaign website, “He is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
• 2002:  Campaign website, “The minimum wage is important to our economy and Mitt Romney supports minimum wage increase, at least in line with inflation.”
• 2003:  Hired a New England environmental activist, Doug Foy, to draft the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the country’s first interstate compact with ten other states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by ten percent by 2019.  There are conflicting reports about whether or not Romney was a signatory.  In 2004, he initiated the “Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan,” a series of damaging emission regulations targeted at power plants.  One of the plants he targeted with false stats from extremist environmental propaganda (“that plant kills people”) filed for bankruptcy two years later. (http://www.romneyexposed.com/2011/07/23/exclusive-new-information-on-romney%E2%80%99s-views-on-global-warming/)
• 18 Nov 2003:  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules same-sex marriage protected and gives legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling)
• Dec 2003 – 2005:  The teaching of homosexuality officially enters the Massachusetts public school system.  A kindergarten parent who strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism was arrested and put in jail overnight
• 26 Apr 2004:  Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of Peace to resign (or be fired, fined or sued) if unwilling to perform same-sex marriages based solely on the judge’s “Goodrich” ruling.
• May 2004:  Nominated homosexual activist, Stephen S. Abany to Wrentham District Court
• 29 Oct 2004:  Romney signs new law eliminating blood test for STDs as requirement for marriage license opening the door for homosexuals with STDs to get marriage licenses
• November 2004:  Claims to have converted to pro-life after a meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher. Two months later, nominated liberal pro-abortion Democrat Matthew Nestor to a lifetime seat on the Somerville District Court
• 2005:  Boston Globe op-ed Romney quote, “Stem cell research does not require the cloning of human embryos.  Some stem cells today are obtained from surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization.  I support that research…”
• Oct 2005:  Signed the bill to get a federal waiver to expand state subsidized distribution of “emergency contraception” (Plan B abortifacient or morning-after abortion pill) to low-income women
• Dec 2005:  Ordered Catholic Hospitals to dispense “emergency contraception,”  (Plan B abortifacient or morning-after abortion pill) on the legal advice of his personal counsel, Mark Nielsen
• 2 Jan 2006:  Boston Globe  reports Romney issued special Governor’s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005, claiming he complied with a statute that the legislature had not yet passed
• 10-14 Mar 2006:  Requires Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents resulting in them closing their doors in Massachusetts
• 12 Apr 2006:  Signed RomneyCare into law, including Planned Parenthood on the advisory board setting standards for coverage which led shortly thereafter to state-funded abortions (which are now free) (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/30/mitt-romney-didnt-just-give-planned-parenthood-money-he-gave-them-extra-power/)
• July 2009:  USA Today op-ed, urged ObamaCare to include an individual mandate (for each citizen to purchase health insurance or pay a fine)
• 16 May 2012:  Holds $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of Teva Pharmaceuticals that manufactures the Morning After Pill (Plan B One-Step abortifacient)
• 9 Oct 2012:  The Des Moines Register interview, “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”

And then there is his Mormonism.  Let us be very clear about something:  Mormons are not Christians.  The God and the Jesus the Mormons speak of is not the God and Jesus of our Bible.  Those who claim Mormons are Christians are uniformed or misleading.  Please educate yourselves on this issue (“The Facts on the Mormon Church” by John Ankerberg and John Weldon with Dillon Burroughs).  You should not fool yourself into thinking that a Mormon will have Christian values or a Christian worldview.

It completely nauseates us to think of a second term for President Obama.  We knew how bad President Obama was in 2008 when the Republican Party put us in that no-win situation.  He has always been a Chrislam (the ungodly convergence of Christianity and Islam), anti-colonialist Marxist who has undisputed ties to every radical progressive in our country, despises our Constitution, wants to hurt America as much as he possibly can and stands in defiance to the Lord Jesus Christ on every moral issue.  We’ve seen “2016” and “Occupy Unmasked.”  So why in 2012 did the Republican Party nominate someone who socialist mastermind and billionaire, George Soros, said in a January 2012 Reuters interview, “If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them.”  A degenerate (in our opinion) like Soros can see what thousands of Christians are choosing to ignore.

The roots of America’s economic problems stem from rejected morality.  We have completely turned our backs on the Lord Jesus Christ.  We cannot ask God to bless us as a nation when what we are doing or voting for as a nation He calls wickedness.  Our real hope as a country is to turn back to God and repent.  Unless we address the morality, we cannot turn the economic tide.  Neither Mitt Romney nor President Obama has any intent to address our moral decline.  We firmly believe that if we honor the Lord Jesus Christ with our votes, inexplicable miracles will happen that have a much greater chance of saving our country than any man.  If you agree, here are a couple of presidential candidates on the Colorado ballot you might want to consider.  While they are not perfect, they line up more closely with our Biblical worldview than the major party candidates:

Tom Hoefling, America’s Party, www.tomhoefling.com; He is not on the ballot in every state, but with write-in access could have enough electoral votes to win.
Supports:  Life, traditional marriage, 2nd Amendment, private property rights, restoring limited government, peace through strength, sovereignty, and the repeal of 16th & 17th Amendments

Virgil Goode, American Constitution Party, www.goodeforpresident2012.com; He is not on the ballot in every state, but with write-in access could have enough electoral votes to win.
Supports:  Constitution, eliminating federal programs, moratorium on green cards, stopping illegal immigration, no amnesty for illegals, lower taxes, tort reform, traditional marriage, ending Obamacare, closing the Department of Education, 2nd Amendment, life, the continuation of Social Security and Medicare

EL PASO COUNTY

We cannot recommend many Republicans on the ballot here in El Paso because of their records.  While redistricting by the Democrats greatly reduces the chance of Republicans holding onto their one vote majority in the House, we still cannot recommend these Republicans.  They have cooperated more with the Democrats than with the conservatives who put them in office and, in our opinion, do not deserve our votes.  We have looked at some of the third party candidates, but cannot recommend them either.  (Boldfaced names below indicate those we would vote for.)

REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 113TH UNITED STATES CONGRESS – DISTRICT 5
Doug Lamborn

REGENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO – AT LARGE
Cannot recommend the Republican in this race

REGENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO – CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 5
Cannot recommend the Republican in this race

STATE SENATE – DISTRICT 10
Owen Hill

STATE SENATE – DISTRICT 12
Bill Cadman

STATE REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 14
Dan Nordberg – This Republican does not have a record for us to make a recommendation.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 15
Mark Waller – We cannot recommend the Republican because while he claims to be pro-life, he has not responded to the Colorado Right to Life survey and has not supported Personhood.  In addition, he has sponsored legislation that was billed as pro-life when it was not.  He also voted with Democrats to permanently take away the gun rights of people the police label “a person of interest” even if they turn out to be completely innocent.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 16
Janak Joshi – While this Republican is a Hindu (which means his decisions will be made from a non-Christian perspective), he did sponsor a Fetal Homicide measure in 2012 and says he will support traditional marriage; however, his support of Personhood is not known.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 17
Mark Barker

STATE REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 18
Jennifer George – We cannot recommend the Republican because of her support for same-sex civil unions.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 19
Amy Stephens – We cannot recommend the Republican because of her performance as Majority Leader the last two years and because she has not supported Personhood or responded to surveys by Colorado Right to Life, Pikes Peak Citizens for Life, or Colorado Christian Coalition.  Even though Tom Minnery (Senior Vice President for Government & Public Policy for Focus on the Family) endorsed her during the Republican Primary, Colorado Right to Life has come to the conclusion that she is a fake pro-lifer.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 20
Bob Gardner – We cannot recommend the Republican because he allowed same-sex civil unions to pass out of the committee he chaired earlier this year and because Colorado Right to Life does not consider him pro-life.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE – DISTRICT 21
Lois Landgraf – We are supporting her solely because Colorado Right to Life has said that she is pro-life and is in favor of Personhood.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY – 4TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Dan May

You can go to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/evaluations-2012/ to make your own decisions about the judges on the ballot.  The judicial system in our state is very liberal and, more times than not, makes decisions that go against common sense and the taxpayer.  We feel one of the ways to deal with that is to vote these guys out of their judicial offices.  In other words, here is your opportunity to impose term limits with your vote.

COUNTY COMMISSIONER – DISTRICT 2
Amy Lathen – We cannot recommend the Republican because in our opinion she epitomizes Power Protection Politics (PPP) despite the lip service she gives to conservatism in op-ed pieces and speeches.

COUNTY COMMISSIONER – DISTRICT 3
Sallie Clark – We cannot recommend the Republican because of her record of voting to keep tax refunds that belong to you, voting against lowering property tax rates, for placing tax increases on the ballot, and for supporting the deceptively-worded ballot question that extended term limits so she could stay in power longer.

COUNTY COMMISSIONER – DISTRICT 4
Dennis Hisey – We cannot recommend the Republican because of his record of voting for placing tax increases on the ballot and for supporting the deceptively-worded ballot question that extended term limits so he could stay in power longer.

BALLOT QUESTIONS

AMENDMENT S – NO
Makes changes to the state personnel system that has benefits and drawbacks.  However, the drawbacks outweigh then benefits.  It will cost the taxpayer more money because temporary workers can be hired longer and does not fix systemic problems with the civil service.

AMENDMENT 64 – NO
This places the legalization of marijuana into our state Constitution, making it legal to grow, transport and sell marijuana for recreational use.  Anyone twenty-one years or older would legally be able to possess and consume up to one ounce of marijuana (the equivalent of 60 joints or eight pans of pot brownies).  Adolescent marijuana usage in Colorado has increased since medical marijuana was approved in 2009.  Suspensions for drug violations at Colorado’s public schools have increased 45% over the past four years.  This is an addictive drug that has increased in potency, can lead to the use of other drugs, and can permanently affect brain development for children and young adults, lowering their I.Q.s.  Marijuana abuse accounts for 67% of adolescents in substance-abuse treatment programs in the United States.  Between 2006 and 2010, more than 400 people in Colorado were killed in car crashes involving a driver who was on drugs.  Many of you may have seen the commercials claiming that regulation revenue will be spent on education.  That is simply a fantasy.  State income from the highly taxed alcohol and tobacco only pays for 10-12% of the collateral damage produced.  There are enough of us to stop this from passing, but we must show up and vote no.  You can find out more at http://votenoon64.com/index.html.

AMENDMENT 65 – NO
Another attempt by government to mess with elections under the guise of campaign finance and the usual result is no improvements in the system and more losses of our freedom of speech.

1A – EL PASO – NO
Per TABOR, they have to ask your permission to take more of your money.  They always make it sound drastic if you don’t, but it’s just not true.  Does the sheriff need a $99,000/year legal advisor when there is a $130,000/year county attorney?  By the way, this is the same sheriff whose deputies, according to a 24 Sep 2011 article in The Gazette, went to several Ace Loan pawn shops around Colorado Springs, taking cash from registers, safes and even the owner’s wallet to collect delinquent Stormwater Enterprise fees (known as till taps) supposedly in compliance with court orders.  Do we dare vote no for an agency that uses such heavy-handed tactics?  Absolutely!  We are in the fourth year of a declining economy.  The only place where revenues are increasing is in the government.  Since 1995, the sheriff’s office has asked for more of your money three times.  His budget then was $20.9 million.  Today it is $47.8 million.  Most of us have had to cut back to make it through.  So should the sheriff.

1B – EL PASO – YES
Here is your chance to REDUCE term limits for the offices listed from three consecutive four-year terms back to the original two four-year terms.  It is our opinion that the longer these people stay in office, the more corrupt they become.  Show them how thankful you are for them placing the unnecessary tax increase request from the sheriff on this already ridiculously long ballot by kicking them out as soon as you can.  County Commissioners Sallie Clark and Dennis Hisey are already getting their third four-year term if they win this election and will still get to serve it because this ballot measure is worded to grandfather in their third terms.

2 C – CITY OF MANITOU SPRINGS – NO
Here the city of Manitou Springs would like the voters to let them spend the money they are already collecting in a different way than was approved by the voters originally.  Sounds like they have surpluses that they want to keep and spend.

5A – PIKES PEAK RURAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY- NO
Per TABOR, they have to ask your permission to extend a tax increase for another 10 years (was supposed to end Dec 31, 2014).  While you might be able to afford continuing to give your portion of this $284 million, please consider that a yes vote commits your neighbors to continuing to give this tax when they might not be as fortunate.  The way things are going who of us will be able to afford to put gas in a vehicle to drive on any of these pending road projects.  It truly is a time for necessities not projects that are nice to have.  Besides do you really want to spend your money for a roundabout at the Union/Woodmen intersection?!!!  Yes, that is one of the projects this tax is slated to do.

The following measures are all tax increases.  Per TABOR, they have to ask your permission to take more of your money.  We are in the fourth year of a declining economy.  The only place where revenues and budgets increase every year is in the government.  Most of us have had to cut back to make it through declining personal incomes.  It is time for the government to cut along with us and stop growing.  Now is not the time to increase taxes no matter how wonderful you might think government is.  If you can afford to give the government more of your money, you do not need to pass a tax measure on this ballot to do that.  You are free to donate at any time.  Have some compassion; please do not obligate your neighbors to giving up more of their money when they probably don’t have it to give.
2A – TOWN OF CALHAN – NO
2B – CITY OF MANITOU SPRINGS – NO
2D – CITY OF FOUNTAIN – NO
4A – SOUTHWESTERN HIGHWAY 1115 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT – NO
5B – SECURITY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT – NO
5C – TRI-LAKES MONUMENT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT – NO

Upcoming Colorado Springs Special Election

Those who live inside Colorado Springs city limits have already or will be receiving a mail-in ballot this week.

All ballots must be returned by 7:00 p.m. on August 28, 2012 to be counted in this election.  Ballots can be mailed or dropped off at the following locations:

City Clerk’s Office, 30 S. Nevada Ave, Ste 101

Colorado Springs Senior Center, 1514 N. Hancock Ave

Fire Station #8, 3737 Airport Rd

Fire Station #19, 2490 Research Pkwy

Fire Station #20, 6755 Rangewood Dr

If you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 719-385-5901.

There is one issue on this ballot:

Issue 1A

“Shall the City of Colorado Springs be authorized to lease the Memorial Health System to the University of Colorado Health system pursuant to the terms and conditions approved by City Council on June 27, 2012, as set forth in Resolution No. 89-12, and to take all other actions necessary to accomplish this purpose?”

We are voting “NO” on Issue 1A.

The media and most elected officials are telling you this deal is a “dream come true.”  A lot of money is being spent on pushing this measure through.  But we have a very fundamental question all of you need to consider.  If this is such a wonderful proposition, why is the City Council using $450,000 of your taxes (especially when Mayor Bach has proclaimed that we are going broke as a city) to conduct a Special Election in August instead of placing this issue on the November ballot?  It is not because there is an October 1, 2012 deadline in this deal.  Deadlines could have been adjusted thereby saving almost half a million tax dollars. It is because Special Elections have much lower turnouts and therefore fewer votes are needed to pass an issue.  And make no mistake about it, the “yes” votes will be out in full force on this one.  The timing alone should make you rethink following the media and your elected officials down this questionable path.

Then there is the actual money involved in this deal.  Memorial Hospital is worth $500 million — that is the amount of an cash upfront offer the City Council rejected earlier.  This is a taxpayer asset.  Instead of cashing in on a $500 million asset, the City Council wants you to vote on a lease to the University of Colorado Health that will pay the City of Colorado Springs:

• $74 million up front
  • $50 million of this initial payment will be set-aside to resolve outstanding liabilities like lawsuits
• $185 million to deal with Memorial’s pension liabilities
  • Was estimated to be $246 million 2 years ago, but we’re being assured its much less now
• $5.6 million a year for a rolling, 30-year lease (so actually a 40 year lease)
  • This money will be put into a foundation focused on local heath needs with a board appointed by the Mayor to oversee how the money is spent
  • When the lease is up in 2052, we would have to “buy back” our own hospital for Fair Market Value
• A promise of $28 million a year in the hospital for capital improvements
• The city would also get to keep $330 million of cash and short-term investments which it will need to pay off Memorial’s $324 million debt

Most Disturbing Aspects of the Lease (an analogy):

While we are not experts in any way on this subject, we wanted to find a way to relate it in a general way to something more familiar to most of us.  Please keep in mind, this is not an exact correlation.  This lease deal would be similar to a mortgage you have on a $250,000 home of which you still owe $162,000 (you have $88,000 in equity).  You are being asked to rent your home for an initial payment of $12,500 and monthly rental payments of $233, which you can only give to charity as designated by someone else.  When you’re done renting out your home 40 years later YOU have to BUY YOUR OWN HOME BACK from the renter for the Fair Market Value or if YOU or THE RENTER break the rental agreement between now and then, YOU have to BUY YOUR OWN HOME BACK for between 90% and 110% of Fair Market Value (see Section 13.7 of the actual lease agreement).  If we were talking about your home, would you enter this deal and saddle your children and grandchildren with the burden of buying your own home back under these terms?  It would be especially insulting to have to accept this deal after your agent rejected an offer to buy your home for $250,000 cash!!

Despite the accolades we’ve heard about the University of Colorado’s Health programs and services, it is our opinion that this is no dream.  It is a nightmare that the voters shouldn’t want to come true for the sake of future citizens of Colorado Springs!

The actual lease agreement can be found at this link: http://www.springsgov.com/units/communications/MHS/89-12 Resolution – Agreements.pdf (although it has been purposely written so that you need a lawyer to wade through it all).  Here are a couple of websites you might also want to check out:

http://ourcityourcare.com/

http://www.nohospitalscam.com/