Monday, October 8, 2018

November 2018 Voting Suggestions

To: Colorado Voters

Below are my November 2018 voting recommendations.  These were made only after giving considerable thought and research.  These are ONLY recommendations and should be viewed in that light.  Good people will disagree; that's the beauty of our system.
Former Colorado State Senator, Dave Schultheis

See Key Election Results in Red, below
For the first time since preparing my recommendations, I am not indicating specific Republican candidates over others.  There are two reasons for this: 
  1. Candidate selections were made during the last Primary election cycle. 
  2. All recommendations are for Republican candidates only, as the Democrat Party Leadership has veered so far from upholding constitutional principles, that to  prefer them over those linked to the Republican Platform would do injustice to our founding principles. 
  3. The Colorado House has a 37-28 Democrat majority. While it will be difficult to overcome that wide margin, "all things are possible," particularly since we continue to see the radical Progressives' behavior in recent weeks.
  4. Most important in this state's election cycle is to do our utmost to retain a Republican majority in the state's Senate.  If Colorado should have Polis as its governor, it will be crucial for Republicans to control the Senate Committees in order to kill radical, progressive laws coming from a Democrat-controlled House. 
With regard to the Constitutional (Amendments) and Statutory (Propositions), a couple Principles are worth noting: 

  1.  Regardless of how you decide to vote, understand when ballot issues begin by saying "Without Raising Additional Taxes...." the issue is generally attempting to continue existing taxes rather than letting the current tax lapse as voters expected would happen when the termination date was originally established.  Several years ago, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that it was not a new tax, yet, common sense says that when a tax is to due to be terminated a new ballot issue requesting to use those tax dollars for the same or different issue it is a new tax.  Such a ruling was, in my view in error.  My suggestion is to view it as a NEW tax and make your decision accordingly.
  2. Secondly, remember that every single government entity wants to increase its size, power and influence.  To do so takes more tax dollars.  It is the nature of government that our Founding Fathers knew would be present and why they tried to limit its reach. 
  3. The third principle I look for is the constant "need" for funds for "police and fire."  Providing an environment of relative safety should be a goal of governments.  In these increasingly-tumultuous times, governments often propose raising taxes and specifically targeting the issues of Police and Fire safety to get taxpayer approval. Instead, City and County budgets should fully fund safety issues first, with the rest of the tax dollars being allocated to issues important to running government, not the other way around.  County and City governments should be held accountable for underfunding Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice  and Emergency Response needs.
El Paso County 1A
  • Recommendation NO.  El Paso County needs to first reprioritize its budget areas, placing Public Safety issue at the top of its budget.  Colorado Springs has a combined sales tax rate of 8.25%.  Denver's rate is 7.65%.  This requested tax increase is embarrassing.  
Town of Palmer Lake
2A     Recommend NO.  Higher taxes will increase the Town's bureaucracy and will increase illegal growing and distribution because the costs will be less than that sold in authorized locations.

2B     Recommend NO.  Allowing the sale of Marijuana is going to allow for "sustainable employment opportunities and sales tax revenue."  Adding marijuana sales locations that need higher tax dollars to monitor, as well as creating a dependence on marijuana sales to help the town with its infrastructure is beyond ridiculous. 

Town of Green Mountain Falls-3A     Recommend NO. Allowing the use of taxes levied through a lodging occupational tax to be used without limitation and without limiting the expenditure of any other revenues..." denotes irresponsible actions by the town's government.  

No voting recommendations for the following districts
Lewis-Palmer School District No. 38 -  4A and 4B
Ellicott School District No. 22 - 4D
El Paso County Colorado School District 49 - 4C
Harrison School District No. 2 - 4E
Manitou Springs School District No 14 - 4F
Triview Metropolitan District 6A
Falcon Fire District - 6B
Black Forest Fire Rescue Protection District - 6C
Ellicott Fire Protection District - 6C

Amendment V: Lower Age Requirement for Members of the State Legislature
Recommend NO.  As a Colorado State Representative and State Senator for a combined 10 years, I am strongly opposed to this change.  Citizens who are going to make laws that the rest of the state's citizens must abide by ought to manifest maturity and have several years of living/working experience.  Most 21yr-old citizens have yet to form opinions from years of living experience.
Election Result: NO

Amendment W: Election Ballot Format for Judicial Retention Elections
Recommend YES.  This only simplifies the format.  Makes no substantive change

Amendment X: Industrial Hemp Definition
Recommend YES.  Removes the definition of "Industrial Hemp" from the state's Constitution and gives the term the same meaning as in federal law or state statute.
Election Result: YES

Amendment Y: Congressional Redistricting
Recommend NO. Establishes a new process for congressional redistricting.  There are too many issues that make this Amendment unacceptable to discuss here.  One term being proposed for use in creating Congressional districts is  “communities of interest.”  That term allows improper considerations of race, ethnicity, and other factors to override neutral principles that apply to all citizens. It continues to foster identity politics. Our U.S. Constitution is in opposition to creating or identifying classes of individuals by identifiable groups.  Such acknowledgement of "communities of interest" work counter to the ability to make decisions based on transcendent Principles.  Considering any citizen as member of a group does a disservice to those who think differently.  We must consider individuals as unique, not members of a group.  Finally, numerous individuals and organizations promoting and funding "Y" hold extreme progressive views.
Election Result: YES

Amendment Z: Legislative Redistricting
Recommend NO.  Establishes a new process for Legislative redistricting.  The answers to Amendment Z are nearly identical to Amendment Y.
Election Result: YES

Amendment A: Prohibit Slavery and Involuntary Servitude in All Circumstances
Recommend NO. If these are removed from the books there will be a number of lawsuits that will claim that their sentences and/or treatment have been tantamount to either slavery or involuntary servitude or both whereas if they are left on the books neither can be claimed in a lawsuit.  It would seem useful to leave them on the books and not use them. I know that people cringe when they see those terms, but that's more a sign of the times than not.  
Election Result: YES

Amendment 73: Funding for Public Schools
Recommend NO.  What we are looking at here should Amendment 73 pass is a huge tax increase.  Years ago the state started funding full-day kindergarten, then half-day pre-school, then full-day pre-school.  The increase in the number of illegal alien children or children of illegal aliens has increased dramatically, placing a significant burden on taxpayers to fund their "free education."  A73 also includes an additional $20million for English Language Proficiency, much of it going to these same children. Additionally, Public schools are increasingly becoming indoctrination centers for progressive ideology.  For these and a host of other reasons, the voters should consider checking Chalkbeat for the poor performance of our high school students.  Examine The Gazette's Editorial on this issue.
Election Result: NO

Amendment 74: Compensation for Reduction in Fair Market Value by Government Law or Regulation
Recommend NO.  While this Amendment may have potential benefits to the property owner, I am very hesitant to add this to the state's constitution.  There are already state statutes that address this subject;  The legislature could be tighten them.  We do not need this in the state's constitution.
Election Result: NO

Amendment 75: Campaign Contributions
Recommend YES.  Some change is needed to help balance out the campaigns of the very wealthy with those having more meager resources. That said, current campaign funding limits significantly favor the wealthy.  This is a good example of an issue that belongs in the state's Statutes, not the constitution, as it is hard to revise. 

Proposition 109: Authorize Bonds for Highway Projects
Recommend YES:  Nearly everyone will agree that the condition of Colorado's roads are abysmal  One trucker told me that even if blindfolded he could tell when he enters Colorado.  Because this Amendment is written to pay for road and bridge expansion, construction, maintenance and repair on 66 transportation projects throughout the state is carefully identified.
Election Result: NO

Proposition 110: Authorize Sales Tax and Bonds for Transportation Projects
Recommend NO: This substantially increases the state's sales and use tax rate for 20 years.  Such an increase will make it more difficult for low and moderate income residents to live and work in CO.  No identification of specific projects. True that Colorado's highway costs outpace collections from the gas tax.  However, a much better solution would be to fully fund this through the state budget.  That solution would force better prioritization of the state budget.
Election Result: NO

Proposition 111: Limitations on Payday Loans
Recommend NO: Government should NOT meddle in a private business. While the costs for such personal loans (max $500) may seem high, they are sometimes a lifeblood for those in temporary need with nowhere else to turn.  Further restrictions and regulations on Payday lenders will only reduce their numbers.  Government should not interfere with such private transactions.
Election Result: YES

Proposition 112 Increased Setback Requirement for Oil and Natural Gas Development
Recommend NO: If passed it will require new oil and natural gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from occupied structures.  It will create severe limitations on the Oil and Gas industry and result in the loss of a significant number of jobs.  The Gazette has a great editorial on Prop. 112
Election Result: NO

Recommendation on Retention of Judges

Voting on Judge retention is an extremely difficult effort.  The general public has no real basis to make such decisions other than to rely on the results of the State Commission on Judicial Performance.  With so many results ranked with a no dissenting votes, makes one wonder the real validity of the performance reviews.  Voting "Yes" on those of whom you are unsure will negate those NO votes from citizens who see that particular Judge as not meeting performance standards.  Therefore, I recommend leaving blank all but the judges and voting NO on:

Recommend NO:  El Paso County Court Judge, the Honorable Christopher Edward Acker

The following is a list of judicial preferences sent to me by a person I totally trust. He has a close friend who is a lawyer who has practices before most of the judges on this list.  These are his recommendations.  The voting for/against retention of judges is perhaps the most difficult of all decisions to make.  Unfortunately we can only rely on the most trusted advice we receive.  That said, I submit these recommendation to you for your consideration.

Supreme Court: Gabriel-No

Colorado Court of Appeals:


District Court Judge-4th Judicial District



County Court Judge



Wednesday, June 6, 2018

June 2018 Primary Ballot Suggestions

Fellow voters:
After much thought and research, you will find my suggestions for the upcoming Primary Ballot below.  If I didn't include a candidate for one of the Senate or House seats, it is because there either are no Republican candidates running OR there is only one.

5th Congressional
Rep. Doug Lamborn
True, consistent conservative.  Check the scorecards by Heritage Action and Conservative Review. Compare his votes with Colorado's other U.S.Reps and Senators as well as GOP in general.

Walker Stapleton

State Treasurer
Justin Everett - (A+ on POL)

State Senator
SD-2: Stephanie Luck

SD7: No Recommendation
SD-7: Dan Thurlow
SD-7: Ray Scott  (F on POL)

SD-22 Anthony (Tony) Sanchez

SD- 34 (Denver) Pastor Gordon Alley

State Representative
HD - 14: Kanda Calef, Solid, conservative challenger.  My solid preference.  Endorsed.
HD - 14: Shane Sandridge, incumbent (A+ on POL)

HD - 22 Frank Francone Recommend
HD - 22 Colin Larson

HD - 28 Kristina Joy Alley

HD - 44: Kim Ransom (A+ on POL)

HD - 56: Phil Covarrubias, incumbent (D+ on POL)
HD - 56: Rod Brockenfeld, Challenger.  Promises to be strong on illegal immigration

County Commissioner, 
District 1: No recommendations.
District 5: Vicki Tonkins Well-respected endorsements.

Mike Angley

References are made to Principles of Liberty (POL) show 2018 voting records for those currently serving in the legislature.  POL reflects the voting record as it pertains to truly conservative values.  Literally thousands of votes have been analyzed to determine the rankings.  It is without question the best indicator of a Representative's or Senator's conservative standing.

Underlined only directs one to the website or Facebook site.  It does not indicate preference.

Friday, September 1, 2017

Goals of the Radically-Progressive Organization, Together Colorado Springs, to make the city the most progressive city in the country

Together Colorado Springs
Kicked off Feb 2017: Guest Speaker Mayor Suthers.  Several hundred attendees.
Board members
Dawn Halliburton-Rudy – Co-Chair: Homeless Advocate, NAACP, Cahir Civic Engagement & Voting Rights
Greg Walta – Co-Chair-
Jane Ard Smith; Lawyer, Chair Sierra Club Peak Region
Todd Luce: Luch Research.
Polling (Gen Pop/Institutional) - Voter ID/Contact/GOTV - Data Collection - Research and Analysis
Bobby Mikulas; Businessman
Ahriana Platten: From her website: experiential theologian, business strategist
Becca Sickbert: Marketer
John Weiss:
Founder of Indy

Mission Goals from website:
Close Drake Power Plant
Citizenship for illegals
Kill Tabor
Increase City Council Pay and run candidates (website takes credit for the flip in COS council last election).
Goals stated during a meeting attended by a source
Make COS the “most progressive city in the country”.
Major push to turn out the vote in southeast part of COS. They believe they can control any vote if they can mobilize that section of city.
Increase Council pay to 68K to attract more candidates they want to elect.
Will work mission goals through city ballot initiatives push southeast COS to tip vote.
Obtain a local radio station by bankrupting it or obtain other radio station to target southeast part of COS. Use Together Colorado Springs 501s  to run a format of hip hop music and local leftist news and talk programming to help indoctrinate southeast side into a voting block. 
 Board member bragged they have up to 500k to run candidates and push initiatives.
A check of TRACER shows no issue committee by the name of Together Colorado Springs. Together Colorado TRACER check showed expenditures of 87.8K with $82.5K going to CO Families for a Fair Wage.
Aligned with Emerge Colorado: Sister org to 22 other state chapters. Mission:

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Ballot Suggestions for April 4th Colorado Springs Muinicipal Election

To: Interested Colorado Springs Voters:

Several voters have asked me to weigh in on the upcoming April 4th, Colorado Springs Ballot issues.  Based on the principles of Limited Government and to the best of my ability and the information, my thoughts are as follows:


CAUTION: It is a constant ploy to raise taxes by starting the issue with the wording: "Without Increasing Taxes."  That DECEPTIVE wording should be a Red Flag to voters because it is most-often used to continue an existing tax by assigning it to another cause..OR when a current tax has brought in more funds than anticipated and will require a refund.  So, instead of eliminating the tax (as in the first case) or refunding the overage to the citizens (as in the second case), the county/city place an issue on the ballot that would allocate the use of those funds for something else. 

ISSUE 1:   -- Vote NO

My general rule of thumb is always to vote NO unless there is extremely good reason to vote YES.  In this case, the voter has absolutely no way of knowing the detail behind the reasoning for placing this on the ballot. To vote for a change int he city's charter without understanding the reasoning behind such a change would make for an uninformed vote.  Therefore, I would recommend a NO vote.

ISSUE 2: Vote NO

Deceptive wording: "WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES..."

Surplus revenue this year and next is estimated to be $9million.  "Surplus revenue" is money out of taxpayers' income.  The city wants to keep $6million for stormwater projects.  Question:  Why haven't the stormwater infrastructure project costs been allocated in the budget during past years?  Now the city wants to keep from returning  the overtaxed funds to taxpayers.  The wording, "Without Increasing Taxes" is deceptive.  Force the city to return all $9milllion of the estimated "revenue" and place a specific ballot issue before taxpayers in the future.

ISSUE 3  Vote NO
Deceptive wording: "WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES..."
If you want more government control of your telecommunications services in place of private enterprise, then this is this issue is for you.  However this bill, passed in 2005 as Senate Bill 152,  was designed to make it difficult for governmental entities to compete with private enterprise in providing a cable television service, telecommunications service, or high speed internet access service to subscribers, and from purchasing, leasing, constructing, maintaining or operating any facility for the purpose of providing such service.

City Council Dist 1: Don Knight.
I'm not convinced that Don's opponent fully understands, when he says "Create a Government that is a Partner..." what that really means.  Most-often, whenever government is a "partner," it put a drag on free enterprise and competition.
When Don's opponent states the obvious, that we must "Fund our Communities infrastructure challenges...." there is no discussion as to where those fund will be generated.
When Don's opponent says "it's time to pursue business diversification," what does he mean?  How much more diversification does he plan to pursue...and what government expense will be involved to achieve this undefined goal?
Don's opponent's answer to most of the issues is more taxes or fees.  I don't sense there is any desire to re-prioritize the income the city is already is receiving.
Finally, Don's opponent is a "non-partisan" candidate.  How do his "non-partisan" views determine  the Principles he will use in making decisions? You should want to know what those principles are before considering him for an important City Council position.

City Council District 4: Helen Collins  (No other candidate is as interested in keeping your taxes low and serving his/her citizens)
I have observed Helen Collins for several years, and there is no question that she is far-and-away the best candidate for this District.  She is extremely committed to responding quickly to constituents' needs.  Her District needs someone who will not only respond promptly, but follow-through on handling the concerns of her constituents.  Helen is also extremely focused on maintaining the lowest tax rate possible that will meet the infrastructure and safety needs of her constituents.  If you are a constituent  of hers and have an important issue that needs solving, you want Helen as your advocate.

City Council District 6:  Janak Joshi
Former State Representative.   Studies the issues very well.  Has keen insight. Strong conservative principles.  Strong supporter of TABOR.  High moral standards.

Monday, November 21, 2016

It Wasn't an Election, It was a Revolution, by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

  This wasn’t an election. It was a revolution.

It’s midnight in America. The day before fifty million Americans got up and stood in front of the great iron wheel that had been grinding them down. They stood there even though the media told them it was useless. They took their stand even while all the chattering classes laughed and taunted them.

They were fathers who couldn’t feed their families anymore. They were mothers who couldn’t afford health care. They were workers whose jobs had been sold off to foreign countries. They were sons who didn’t see a future for themselves. They were daughters afraid of being murdered by the “unaccompanied minors” flooding into their towns. They took a deep breath and they stood.   They held up their hands and the great iron wheel stopped.

The Great Blue Wall crumbled. The impossible states fell one by one. Ohio. Wisconsin. Pennsylvania. Iowa. The white working class that had been overlooked and trampled on for so long got to its feet. It rose up against its oppressors and the rest of the nation, from coast to coast, rose up with it.

They fought back against their jobs being shipped overseas while their towns filled with migrants that got everything while they got nothing. They fought back against a system in which they could go to jail for a trifle while the elites could violate the law and still stroll through a presidential election. They fought back against being told that they had to watch what they say. They fought back against being held in contempt because they wanted to work for a living and take care of their families.

They fought and they won.

This wasn’t a vote. It was an uprising. Like the ordinary men chipping away at the Berlin Wall, they tore down an unnatural thing that had towered over them. And as they watched it fall, they marveled at how weak and fragile it had always been. And how much stronger they were than they had ever known.

Who were these people? They were leftovers and flyover country. They didn’t have bachelor degrees and had never set foot in a Starbucks. They were the white working class. They didn’t talk right or think right. They had the wrong ideas, the wrong clothes and the ridiculous idea that they still mattered.

They were wrong about everything. Illegal immigration? Everyone knew it was here to stay. Black Lives Matter? The new civil rights movement. Manufacturing? As dead as the dodo. Banning Muslims? What kind of bigot even thinks that way? Love wins. Marriage loses. The future belongs to the urban metrosexual and his dot com, not the guy who used to have a good job before it went to China or Mexico.

They couldn’t change anything. A thousand politicians and pundits had talked of getting them to adapt to the inevitable future. Instead they got in their pickup trucks and drove out to vote.   And they changed everything.

Barack Hussein Obama boasted that he had changed America. A billion regulations, a million immigrants, a hundred thousand lies and it was no longer your America. It was his.

He was JFK and FDR rolled into one. He told us that his version of history was right and inevitable.

And they voted and left him in the dust. They walked past him and they didn’t listen. He had come to campaign to where they still cling to their guns and their bibles. He came to plead for his legacy.   And America said, “No.”

Fifty millions Americans repudiated him. They repudiated the Obamas and the Clintons. They ignored the celebrities. They paid no attention to the media. They voted because they believed in the impossible. And their dedication made the impossible happen.

Americans were told that walls couldn’t be built and factories couldn’t be opened. That treaties couldn’t be unsigned and wars couldn’t be won. It was impossible to ban Muslim terrorists from coming to America or to deport the illegal aliens turning towns and cities into gangland territories.

It was all impossible. And fifty million Americans did the impossible. They turned the world upside down.

It’s midnight in America. CNN is weeping. MSNBC is wailing. ABC calls it a tantrum. NBC damns it. It wasn’t supposed to happen. The same machine that crushed the American people for two straight terms, the mass of government, corporations and non-profits that ran the country, was set to win.

Instead the people stood in front of the machine. They blocked it with their bodies. They went to vote even though the polls told them it was useless. They mailed in their absentee ballots even while Hillary Clinton was planning her fireworks victory celebration. They looked at the empty factories and barren farms. They drove through the early cold. They waited in line. They came home to their children to tell them that they had done their best for their future. They bet on America. And they won.    They won improbably. And they won amazingly.

They were tired of ObamaCare. They were tired of unemployment. They were tired of being lied to. They were tired of watching their sons come back in coffins to protect some Muslim country. They were tired of being called racists and homophobes. They were tired of seeing their America disappear.

And they stood up and fought back. This was their last hope. Their last chance to be heard.

Watch this video. See ten ways John Oliver destroyed Donald Trump. Here’s three ways Samantha Bee broke the internet by taunting Trump supporters. These three minutes of Stephen Colbert talking about how stupid Trump is on the internet. Watch Madonna curse out Trump supporters. Watch Katy Perry. Watch Miley Cyrus. Watch Robert Downey Jr. Watch Beyonce campaign with Hillary. Watch fifty million Americans take back their country.

The media had the election wrong all along. This wasn’t about personalities. It was about the impersonal. It was about fifty million people whose names no one except a server will ever know fighting back. It was about the homeless woman guarding Trump’s star. It was about the lost Democrats searching for someone to represent them in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It was about the union men who nodded along when the organizers told them how to vote, but who refused to sell out their futures.

No one will ever interview all those men and women. We will never see all their faces. But they are us and we are them. They came to the aid of a nation in peril. They did what real Americans have always done. They did the impossible.  America is a nation of impossibilities. We exist because our forefathers did not take no for an answer. Not from kings or tyrants. Not from the elites who told them that it couldn’t be done.

The day when we stop being able to pull off the impossible is the day that America will cease to exist.  Today is not that day. Today fifty million Americans did the impossible.

Midnight has passed. A new day has come. And everything is about to change.

  “Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society.”   Aristotle

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Voting Recommendations for November 8, 2016

My recommendations on the upcoming voting issues

Whenever one analyzes ballot issues it should be done with some degree of understanding as to what he/she expects from the Government.  We all know that Government seldom passes any law that doesn't remove removing hard-earned dollars from the citizens, or favoring one class of persons over another..  While some degree of government is certainly essential, it should be constrained to only those functions that citizens cannot do for themselves. Government is all about power;  the more power we, as citizens give it, the more it wants and the less freedoms we have to live our lives as we desire.

Also important to keep in mind as you decide your votes is that it is most-often less "risky"to vote for changes to the Colorado Statutes than to vote to change the Colorado Constitution, since the Constitution should remain as stable as possible (similar to the U.S. Constitution).  It should be difficult to change, whereas Statutes are more-easily modified by the legislature once they have been passed by the voters, should unforeseen consequences result.

With that in mind, here are my suggestions for the upcoming ballot this November 8th.  For brevity, I will be voting NO on each of the Amendments and Propositions.  Nearly all would move Colorado towards a more socialized form of government and further limit citizens' liberties.

Trump/Pence -- YES
While I am disheartened with the manner and approach that Trump campaigns, as well as the recent "locker-room" talk recently exposed after 12 years,  I have been a supporter of Trump since the onset of his campaign.  Many of you will at first seem aghast at my position, so let me explain. 

While serving in the Legislature for ten years, and building a very conservative track record, I decided, in 2005, to become the "tip of the spear" with respect to fighting illegal immigration because I became profoundly aware of the damage throughout society that our lax immigration policy was causing.  Increased crime, lower wages, over-taxed healthcare, increased welfare, over-burdened education, risks to national security and to the environment...virtually every aspect of our society was being negatively affected. Furthermore, our American culture was beginning to change as a result of a virtually open-door immigration policy.  Now, with the growing numbers of Muslim immigrants pouring in from Syria, pushed by President Obama and agreed to by Hillary Clinton, it won't be long before extreme conflicts significantly arise between the believers in Sharia Law (Islam) and the U.S. Constitution. Should "extreme vetting" as Trump proposes not be in place, we can expect both continued influence of third-world cultures as well as Islamic terrorist-inspired events.

Finally, as our culture moves further and further away from our roots, we can forget a having a Supreme Court that adheres to the Constitution, but rather focuses on social change.

If you need any other reasons to vote for Trump/Pence, consider these:
  • Trump allowed key organizations to fashion the most conservative Republican Platform ever.
  • Trump is not hostile to Religious freedom
  • Trump is strongly Pro-Life
  • Trump is committed to upholding strong immigration laws.  See Ten-point plan here.
  • Trump has committed to using a group of committed religious leaders to provide advice on moral/ethical issues
  • Trump has committed to removing the "Johnson Amendment" which pastors have used as an excuse to muffle themselves from any "politically-related" speech 
  • Trump has committed to appointing Supreme Court Justices that will uphold the Constitution
  • Trump is a strong advocate for 2nd Amendment 
  • Trump is committed to strengthening our National Defense
  • Trump is committed to reversing Obamacare and to major healthcare reform
  • Trump is committed to School Choice
  • Trump is committed to "Extreme vetting" of new entrants to our country
  • Trump will dramatically increase our armed forces
  • Trump is a solid supporter of Israel
  • Trump will "upset" the status quo and put America first when dealing with other countries
  • Be sure to read this article: America's Most Honorable Men Stand With Trump 
  • A powerful three-minute video by John Voight,"Plea to Save America."
So...let's not let comments made a decade or two ago, or allegations unverified dictate our vote.  Hillary has jeopardized our country by her lies and total disregard for National Security.
There is too much at stake in this election that will affect the future of the U.S for good or bad.

For those who consider yourselves Christians, there is NO reason for you to stay home.  As a citizen, we must engage in our country's selection of its leaders. There should be no alternative.

Darryl Glenn for U.S. Congress
I've observed Darryl for many years as he served us as Colorado Springs' City Councilman and then El Paso County Commissioner.

Colorado State Senate
Highly recommend voting for ALL Senate Republicans.  These past two years Republicans only held the Senate by ONE vote.  Because of that majority, albeit slim, it was able to kill numerous progressive bills.  Senate Committees controlled by Republicans held the line against bills advocating more government and advocating, with some bills what many citizens would consider immorality.

NO on Amendment T: No Exception to Involuntary Servitude Prohibition
A proposed Amendment to the State Constitution
Seems to be being driven by those wanting to eventually classify prison labor as "slave labor" in order for those in Dept. of Corrections to be paid higher wages for work done during incarceration or when performing community service.  Has potential for increased state spending. 

NO on Amendment U: Exempt Certain Possessory Interests from Property Taxes
A proposed Amendment to the State Constitution
This minor reform would cost government more to administer than taxpayers would save.
 NO on Amendment 69: State-wide Health-Care System
 A proposed an Amendment to the State Constitution
 MASSIVE new taxes will result if Amendment 69 is passed.  There are numerous reasons why this should not pass.

First, the ballot title calls it a $25 billion tax, for the first year alone. It is a 10% tax on ALL income, with few exceptions. Conservative estimates anticipate the cost to taxpayer to balloon by tens of billions of dollars in the first ten years, requiring higher taxes, higher co-pays and eventually rationing of care.
Click here if you need a more comprehensive analysis.

 No on Amendment 70: State Minimum Wage
 A proposed Amendment to the State Constitution
 This measure proposes increasing the hourly wages to be increased from $9.30 per hour, at the rate of $0.90 per year until the year 2020, bringing the minimum wage up to $12 per hour.

This will significantly hurt businesses who hire unskilled employees.  Many of these businesses will take other measures, such as automating repetitive jobs in order to avoid higher wages.  Fewer obs will mean more welfare costs.  Mandating higher wages favors labor unions and higher-skilled workers at the expense of minorities and youth.  These higher wages are simply passed on to the purchasers of goods and services including those workers themselves.

No on Amendment 71: Requirements for Constitutional Amendments
A proposed Amendment to the State Constitution
This Amendment is a TROJAN HORSE.  For years, the Establishment has tried to come up with a way to remove Colorado's TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS, known as the TABOR Amendment.  At first glance, for the uninformed, this Amendment seems justified in keeping changes to Colorado's Constitution to a minimum, however, the amendment language has a clause that states that the new rules requiring a 55% majority "shall not apply to an initiated constitutional amendment that is limited to repealing, in whole or in part, any any provision of this Constitution."  Many believe that this small sentence will be the undoing of TABOR in a future election.  While that sentence will remain unchanged, once the increased 55% threshold is in place, there will be a major push to defeat TABOR.  If successful, it will be nearly impossible to put a similar tax-restricting issue on the ballot. Click here to learn about TABOR. Click here to hear words from Congressman Tom Tancredo.

No on Amendment 72: Increase Cigarette and Tobacco Taxes
A proposed Amendment to the State Constitution
Another Tax increase? Amendment 72 would add a a significant tax on a pack of twenty cigarettes 
Should not be an issue in the Constitution. This will increase government's regulatory power and create a black market in cigarettes as it has for Marijuana.

NO on Proposition 106: Access to Medical Aid-in-Dying Medication
A proposed Amendment tot the State Statutes
Compassionate-sounding BUT would endanger elderly and disabled persons while subverting the medical profession from its high calling of saving lives, not ending them.   Colorado has already addressed this issue in legislation several years ago by allowing physicians the latitude of prescribing enough pain medication to relieve pain and suffering for the terminally ill, except when its use becomes an intentional ending of life.

This Amendment would legalize physician assisted suicide, but also does not have enough exemptions in place for rights of conscience when a physician or pharmacist cannot, due to deeply held beliefs, prescribe or fill a prescription for the lethal drug. Providers are given some opportunity to opt out, but are also forced to participate in part of the process (such as turning medical records over to another doctor to prescribe the drug.)

No on Proposition 107: Presidential Primary Elections
A proposed Amendment to the State Statutes
Proposition 107  diminishes the value of the caucus system, a goal by Progressives by adding a potentially contentious election right in the middle of the caucus and assembly season. It would also be a recipe for significant political mischief.  Letting individuals from outside a political party help pick that party's nominee is an a terrible idea.

Proposition 108: Unaffiliated Voter Participation in Primary Elections
A proposed Amendment to the State Statutes 
This is not necessary, and will cause unnecessary confusion. Unaffiliated voter can choose to affiliate on the same day as voting, and there is nothing to keep that voter from switching back to unaffiliated after casting the ballot. 


Town of Palmer Lake -NO on 2A
Destroys the purpose of TABOR's tax-limitation restraints
It misstates that there will be no tax increase.  In reality, when the two current tax increases voted on in 2006 and 2007 expire, taxes should automatically reduce.  INSTEAD, 2A proposes to keep those prior tax increases.  It is a lie that it is not a tax increase!
Finally, the proposed uses of the new tax increase are too general.

Town of Palmer Lake - NO on 2B
Like 2A, 2B removes TABOR's tax-limitation restraints. It also removes future decisions related to this new excise tax from citizens and places them with the town Board.  Taxing marijuana will increase the size of government as well as foster black-market conditions.  If you do not want your town to be beholding to the marijuana industry for its revenue, you must vote NO.

Town of Palmer Lake - NO on 2C
One more effort to circumvent the tax-limitation purpose of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).  If you want to vote on future tax increases, you must vote NO. 

Town of Palmer Lake - NO on 300
One more tax on marijuana.  This will certainly lead to a greater black-market condition.  Also, if the Town Council needs more money for roads, etc.  they should request the residents for a specifically-related tax increase, not a specific business.  Receipt of money from taxes on marijuana will make it nearly impossible to not desire increasing marijuana sales to increase those taxes.

Town of Green Mountain Falls - NO on 2E
One more attempt to do an end-run on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).
"If you want less of it, tax it."  If you want less tourism then tax it.  Since tourism is good for Green Mountain Falls, vote NO. If you want beautification of Gazebo Lake Park, drainage issues, etc.,  vote specifically on those items at a future time.  Always easy to force others to pay, but is it right?

El Paso County School District No. 20 (Academy).  3A
Our education system continues to be co-opted by Teachers' Unions as well as Federal Government Regulations and Directives requiring implementation of immoral standards (bathrooms, and curriculum, viz. Common Core).  Until School Boards, including D20 refuse these "mandates" and reassess the true role of K-12 Education, no additional tax dollars should be forthcoming.

Falcon School District 49 -  3B
No recommendation
Colorado Springs School District No. 11 - 3C
No recommendation
Colorado Springs School District No. 11 - 3D
No recommendation
Hanover School District 28 - 3E 
No recommendation
Green Mountain Falls-Chipita Park Fire Protection District 4A 
No recommendation
Triview Metropolitan District - 5A 
No recommendation
Paintbrush Hills Metropolitan District - NO on 5B 
This appears to provide the unlimited ability to totally disregard the TAXPAYER BILL OF RIGHTS (TABOR) in the future.  The taxpayers would be giving the Establishment the right to keep funds from any source regardless of whether or not it exceeded TABOR
Stratmoor Hills Fire Protection District - NO on 5C
This ballot item IS a tax increase because it allows the Fire Protection District to keep funds that would, under TABOR, be returned to the citizen.  It is impossible for any government agency to want to live within any tax restraints.  The taxing district should allow the tax to lapse and then request a new tax to the voters.
El Paso County 1A Allows County to Invest in Broadband
Vote NO!!!
Don't you just love the words used to make it sound like it is free?  That it is fair?  That voters "value" public/private partnerships?  That it is good to extend (government) services to everyone, including the "underserved?" That there is an "opt-out" provision (instead of an opt-in)?  Let's understand that government's job is not to make everyone equal in all respects by forcing those that "have" in order to "give" to those who don't.  Cities and counties can assess their voters to provide funds for whatever service is desired without asking other communities to "chip in" for their benefit.
Much could be said about this socialist-leaning ballot initiative.  Please VOTE NO.


Vote NO on Appellate Judge Berger, who voted to retain the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's ruling against Masterpiece Cakeshop owner for electing not to frost a wedding cake for two men. 
Vote NO on Judge Hood, the Colorado Supreme Court justice who voted to uphold Berger's decision. The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is an example of the "antidiscriminationism ideology" that has ravaged American society.
Clear The Bench Colorado has a great analysis of the decisions by each of the Judges up for retention.  I consider the analyses by CTB to be well worth reviewing before determining your vote.  Click here for that info.