November 3, 2016

In the Presidential campaign there is a lot of breaking news regarding corruption in the State Department and in the Department of Justice. The allegations that are now being made expose corruption much worse than that which led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in connection with the Watergate cover-up.

To summarize the Watergate matter, prior to the November 1972 election, some Republicans broke into the premises of the Democrat Party at the Watergate Hotel. Later, evidence was discovered that President Nixon covered up information about the break-in. When evidence was made public that would support the charge that President Nixon had obstructed justice, Nixon resigned as President.

The information now surfacing shows corruption and improper peddling of influence by Hillary Clinton when and after she was at the State Department, and it exposes how Attorney General Lynch and the Department of Justice have been working to cover it up. It has come to light that Hillary Clinton was using the private server to try to keep secret actions of the Clinton Foundation in getting money in exchange for giving opportunities for governmental influence.

To some, the current investigation into Hillary’s emails may not seem to be that egregious, even though other people have been put in jail for lesser crimes than those which Hillary has committed. Pres. Obama characterizes Hillary’s acts as minor mistakes, and the President denied knowing that Hillary used a private server until the new media made it public. However, recently discovered emails make it clear that President Obama did know about Hillary’s private server long before this, and that he communicated with Hillary on the private server.

The Democrat take on Hillary’s email problem is that it is much ado about nothing. But while the email mistake may seem relatively minor, the cover-up that ensued is a gross violation of law. Furthermore, the investigation into the email matter has now exposed serious improper peddling of influence by Hillary while she was Secretary of the State and continuing afterwards as a candidate and potential candidate for President. There is now significant evidence that the President, the Attorney General, the Department of Justice and the State Department have contributed to block proper handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Many individuals are involved in this conspiracy. It is this intentional and improper handling of these FBI investigations that is absolutely despicable. The extent of this corrupt handling of federal investigations is much worse and much more extensive than the actions that led to Nixon’s resignation.

The reaction of the mainstream media to these revelations is indicative of the extreme bias in the mainsteam media. While The Washington Post led the charge against President Nixon in serving up innuendo and information leaks—including leaks that purportedly came from the FBI—today, The Washington Post criticizes those who report FBI leaks that are disparaging of Hillary. This double standard is patently hypocritical. But worse than that, it shows how The Washington Post and the other mainstream media are no longer trustworthy news services, but rather are complicit with Hillary and her party in obstructing the investigation of her alleged illegal actions.

When FBI Director James Comey announced on Oct. 28th that the FBI investigation of Hillary had resumed, I did not initially understand that the depth and extent of the resumed investigation would be as extensive as it is. But newly revealed information includes the following:

 The FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for over a year, and there is evidence that contributors, including foreign entities have contributed millions of dollars to acquire influence, including acquiring influence in the American government.
 There is evidence that five foreign governments have hacked Hillary’s private server and obtained access to classified information. This is evidence that Hillary allowed some protected national information to get into enemy hands, potentially endangering American lives and interests.
 There is evidence that President Obama knew about Hillary’s private server from the beginning, and that he lied about not knowing about it.
 There is substantial evidence that many FBI agents and officers are furious about the improper and biased investigations that have been made of the Clintons—they are furious that a Grand Jury was not impaneled; they are furious that the FBI ran a “sham” investigation.
 It has been exposed that those running the investigations against the Clintons are Clinton hacks.

If the allegations against Hillary are minor and insignificant, then so be it—let the
investigation run its natural course, and the results should not be a big deal. But when the Democrat Party politicized the FBI investigation and gave improper favoritism to Hillary, they turned it into a sham. When the Dept. of Justice and the President have combined to obstruct these criminal investigations—this turns the matter into a very serious criminal matter. And there is now evidence that President Obama has lied about it and that Attorney General Lynch has acted to impair and block the investigations. Both of them now face the prospect of criminal prosecution against them. These obstruction of justice allegations are more serious than those that led to Nixon’s resignation.

If our Justice Department ceases to administer justice with impartiality, then we turn America into a banana republic. The resumed investigation against Hillary Clinton is critical because it has exposed a serious impairment of our justice system, as the Department of Justice has been turned into a governmental power that is pledged to protect Hillary rather than to insure that our laws are applied equally to all citizens. The newly exposed favoritism towards Hillary is repulsive to the essence of justice in America. And this improper favoritism is corruption that goes to the very top of the American government—i.e., to President Obama and to Attorney General Lynch. The initial investigation was a sham! But maybe the renewed investigation will be done properly.

On October 28th, FBI Director Comey informed Congress that the investigation of Hillary Clinton was resuming because he had a duty to promptly so inform them. In July, Comey was broadly criticized by Republicans for not calling for a Grand Jury to consider the allegations against Hillary. Recently we have learned that many of the FBI agents have been furious with Comey for the mishandling of the Hillary investigation—Hillary was given favored treatment, and the investigation was a sham. Then, we learned that so many people were given prosecutorial immunity that there wasn’t anyone left to prosecute in connection with the investigation of Hillary. Then, on top of that, we learn that the FBI was ordered to destroy the laptops with the email information that was on them. I was appalled to learn this. Now I have learned that the FBI agents refused to destroy the evidence, and now we learn that there is evidence on the laptops of improper actions by Hillary and her associates. If this recitation of facts does not cause you to have grave concerns about the corruption in our government, then you are oblivious to fundamentals of fairness and equity. When the new information was presented to Comey, he had to renew the investigation into Hillary—failure to do so could irreparably destroy the credibility and integrity of the FBI. The new evidence made it clear to Comey that high government officials had been involved in improper hiding of evidence—whatever the outcome of the presidential election, he had to expose the extensive corruption of which he now had evidence, and it had to be done immediately.

With this backdrop, President Obama is now campaigning extensively to get Hillary elected. He now needs Hillary to be elected so that she can continue to work with him to block an investigation into this whole affair. Every day for the last few days President Obama has been repeatedly stating falsehoods and lies about Trump, in his efforts to defeat him. He needs for Hillary to be elected to help protect him from being held responsible for his lies, because his interests are now connected with those of Hillary. If Hillary is elected, then she can control who is appointed the head of the Department of Justice and the FBI; then she can continue to block investigations into her improper actions.

An independent prosecutor should have been appointed to investigate Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation—but Obama and his hack, Lynch, don’t want it.

As for me, I am repulsed at the lies, hypocrisy and with the improper peddling of influence for money that has brought millions of dollars to Hillary through the Clinton Foundation—much of this from foreign nations. I am repulsed at the double standard that Obama and Hillary apply to themselves—which is lenient to them, but hard on others. If General Cartwright is in jail for his handling (or mishandling) of classified information, then so should Hillary be.

As I believe you all know, I have been supportive of the Republican candidates, including Trump, because the Republican approach was much better for America. I won’t repeat those reasons here, except to point out that it is a conflict between proponents of socialism and the proponents of the free enterprise system. There are some things about Donald Trump that I do not like. But I have supported his candidacy because I believe it will be much better for America to have him elected, whereas the

election of Hillary Clinton will advance many philosophies and policies that will continue to harm America. Now, however, there is an additional and very important reason to make sure that Hillary is not elected; her election will enthrone a vast corrupt government. This corruption is so extensive and serious that it must be stopped.

I am sharing this with you because some of you may not follow news developments as closely as I do. Also, I want to share with you some of my analysis. The mainstream media is not adequately discussing these things. Frankly, much of the mainstream media often will not even acknowledge the recent revelations of this serious corruption. This conspiracy to obstruct justice and hide information from the public—involving President Obama, Attorney General Lynch and many others in the Department of Justice—is very troubling to me. It is a vast conspiracy that should be exposed, and all participants in it should be defeated.

The post Corruption Probe into Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation appeared first on C. Paul and Terry Smith.

I will make a couple of comments on the recent Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, which held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states as well as to the federal government. For the most part this case is just a re-hashing of the same arguments that were made two years ago, when the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia law that banned the ownership of handguns. District of Columbia v. Heller. However, there are three interesting points to be gleaned from the new case, McDonald v. Chicago.

First, the Court made it official that the Second Amendment is binding on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. During the past 140 years, one by one, most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights have been declared binding on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment (in a process called “selective incorporation”). Until the McDonald decision, the Supreme Court had never actually held that the Second Amendment was one of those rights. The Heller decision did not address this issue because it dealt with a federal law.

Second, this case stands as an example of the obstinacy and blind-mindedness of those who oppose the possession of guns by law-abiding citizens. It is scary to see that both Heller and McDonald were only 5-4 rulings—that they were not unanimous indicates a serious flaw in the constitutional understanding and philosophy of the dissenters. They and their followers distort history and common sense to support their views, and they never give up. Their desires to give government preeminence over individual responsibility would strip us of precious rights and render us unable to protect and defend ourselves; it is just another example of those who think government should do everything for us, and that we should not be able to help or defend ourselves.

Third, it was interesting to read how the right to bear arms was a key right to protect blacks who had been liberated through the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. This fundamental right played a key role in the preservation and protection of all their rights and freedoms.

The post McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) appeared first on C. Paul and Terry Smith.

In the true spirit of American freedom, I offer today some views on the state of our liberty. My friend Alan predicted that this writing would be too long. I guess he may be right. But for those of you whose attention spans have the capacity to consider thoughts for periods of time in excess of 60 seconds, perhaps you will find this intriguing or thought-provoking, if not interesting.

America today is undergoing an assault on our fundamental liberties. The assault is only partly the battles waging in Iraq and Afghanistan. The assault I speak of is from within—as many Americans are willing to sell their liberty for security. The irony of this assault is that whoever sells his liberty for security eventually ends up losing his security, too. For almost a hundred years, many people who have championed the study of philosophy over real work experience, have sought to embrace socialism and bring it to America. Never mind the fact that socialism has never proven to be a viable economic system—its proponents nevertheless continue to press with fervent zeal to establish it in America. These zealots deny or dismiss the collapse of the Soviet Union as proof of the folly of socialism. And for the most part, they don’t openly call themselves socialists. But that is what they are. And today, they comprise the majority party in the United States Congress.

Today’s socialists couch most of their objectives in terms of helping the people—and thereby their siren calls are indeed appealing to many people. But like the Sirens who called to Ulysses, those who heed those calls for security are led to frustration and destruction.

The primary part of the socialists agenda today is Universal, Government Delivered Health Care. It sounds so appealing—especially to those who can’t afford to buy their own. But the recently passed Health Care Reform Act, if not changed or abandoned, will cause economic ruin to the nation, and will ultimately make American health care more expensive and of lesser quality. At the same time it will destroy the current, contract driven health care industry and replace it with government controlled health care. Once our health care system is insulated from the competitive, free market forces, then the quality of our health care will be eroded—leaving in its place long lines and long waits.

The zealots who passed Health Care Reform are happy that some other issues have now taken the front page attention away from the Health Care Reform law. But even if the Gulf Oil Spill, the Arizona border enforcement law, and the firing of General McCrystal all combine to divert the nation’s attention away from the Health Care Reform issues—the devastation that will be wrought by it will nevertheless grow and develop until its economic damage is complete.

The Health Care Reformers do not understand how their law will devastate the nation. They actually claim that it will reduce taxes and will boost the economy. They give no rational support for this proposition, but that does not deter them from making their preposterous claims that it will cure our current economic ills. But our current economic slump is a natural market correction that was precipitated by a national economy based upon easy credit and overly inflated property values. If anyone ever needed proof that the Administration’s approach to correcting the recession is mistaken, you need only observe how the Administration is doubling and tripling our national debt in order to jump start the economy. In case you haven’t noticed—it isn’t working. And yet the Administration insists that more debt is the answer.

The Gulf oil spill by BP is being exploited by the Administration as an opportunity to condemn private enterprise and to extol the virtues of a government that punishes private enterprises so that no one can get too rich. To these socialists, redistribution of wealth is the solution to all our national problems. But the problem with this approach is that redistribution only works until it uses up all the riches of the wealthy. Then, the socialists wonder why their economic system has lost all its vital signs.

The socialists give lip service to the virtues of private industry; but even though they sometimes say they are pro-business, they are constantly passing laws that hinder and plunder business in order to help the needy. The socialists can’t say “no” to any new program that will help some needy group: The rich must pay to help the less fortunate—so they say. But now, when those who receive government aid are more than those who pay money into the government coffers—we now have a recipe for the self-destruction of our economic system. What does a socialistic society do when it runs out of other people’s money? It collapses.

America is on the path to economic collapse, as this Administration continues to attack private business and continues to add government programs (financed by more taxes).

The post Affordable Care Act (2010) – An Assault on Liberty appeared first on C. Paul and Terry Smith.

In their victory speeches(1) on Tuesday night after the New Hampshire Primary results were certain (projecting Sen. Sanders at 60% and Sec. Hilary Clinton at 40%), both Sanders and Clinton criticized the current law on campaign financing, as established by the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC.(2) Both Sanders and Clinton are dead wrong in their criticism of the Citizens United ruling. I will explain why.

The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United corrected a serious and fundamental flaw in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). That flaw is that one of its provisions (2 U.S.C. Sec. 441b) prohibited all corporations except public media corporations from making certain political communications within 30 days of a primary election and within 60 days of a general election. This provision of the BCRA was constitutionally flawed because it discriminated against speech based solely upon who the speaker was. The Supreme Court corectly held that there is no justifiable reason for this disparate treatment.

Regardless of how one feels about the influence of money in elections, it is manifestly unfair to give the well-funded media corporations unfettered freedom to print and broadcast their opinions, their interpretations, and their misrepresentations about candidates and issues and to prohibit any other corporations from making such communications. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that speech cannot be prohibited based solely upon who the speaker is.

1. Even though Secretary Clinton was soundly defeated in this primary election, her speech was nevertheless a “victory” speech, as she thanked her supporters and anticipated her eventual victory of attaining the Democratic Nomination.

2. Secretary Clinton specifically mentioned this case and the fact that the case dealt with a political ad that specifically targeted her. Senator Sanders did not specifically mention the Citizens United case, but he criticized PACs for spending money to influence elections.

Related Articles

Supreme Court Delivers a Major Victory for Freedom of Speech. Court Invalidates Prohibition Against Corporate Expenditures for Political Purposes, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, April 1, 2010

FEC vs. Wisconsin Right to Life

The post Democrats’ Criticism of Citizens United Is Wrong appeared first on C. Paul and Terry Smith.

After counting the absentee ballots on November 6^th, the current vote counts for District 3A are as follows:

• Carol Krimm        11,408        28 %
• Karen Young       10,680        26 %
• Paul Smith              9,747        24 %
• Vickie Wilkins       8,798        21.6%

I trail Karen Young by 933 votes (approximately 9% less than her count), and I trail Carol Krimm by 1,661 votes (approximately 14.5% less than her count).   During the last two months I was informed of four different polls, two of which reported similar results for me.  Two other polls had me in second place.  In all of the polls, I was either in second place or within 2% of second place.

In the beginning

When we kicked off this campaign a year ago we knew that it could be difficult to win in the newly defined District 3A.  The district had more Democrats than Republicans before the Legislature’s redistricting two years ago; and the newly constituted district was made to be even harder for a Republican to get elected in it.  We knew this up front, but we hoped to get some extra support due to the governor’s race, and we thought there may be some Democrat votes that would come my way due to the lingering upset following the Karen Young-Galen Claggett primary election battle in 2013.   But we also knew that there was some discontent among voters over some of my decisions as a County Commissioner—e.g., the sale of Citizens/Montevue and the approval of some development projects.

The campaign

We campaigned hard for a year—especially during the last six months.  We published an excellent, tri-fold flier, and hand-delivered them to over 20,000 homes.  I personally visited about 10,000 of them.  I believe that this personal, door-to-door contacting was very helpful.  But it was not enough.  Carol and Karen are both smart and hard workers; they are respected in the community; and they don’t have any major political baggage.  I believe they each had their full time to devote to campaigning, while I had my law practice and my County responsibilities that also took a lot of my time.  I have the impression that any schism between Carol and Karen was patched up.

During the two weeks just before Election Day, the Maryland House Democratic Committee Slate mailed out six large pieces of campaign literature attacking me—presenting me as anti-women and anti-gay.  I estimate that they spent at least $60,000 on these mailers.   In addition to the slanted propaganda they presented, they made multiple misrepresentations about me.  But I’m not sure what impact these had.  It was a close election, so they may have swayed enough votes to defeat me.   If those fliers convinced 467 voters to vote for Karen Young instead of me, then that would account for the difference.   I don’t think it will be possible to calculate this with any certainty.    Because I am fairly well known, and because many of the negative accusations were old news, the mailers may have had little impact.  Some people reported to me that they were greatly upset by the meanness and falsehoods in those mailers.  I don’t have any numbers on how many people may have voted for me just because of the attack mailers.

During the last week of the campaign I mailed out two sets of fliers, and there were another couple of fliers mailed from State Republicans to try to help my campaign.  I had good ads in the newspaper and on the radio.   I had regular letters to the editor during the last six months.  I conducted four seminars on the issues in this campaign—for which I got some positive publicity.   I also had an excellent website and Facebook presence for any who wanted a more thorough understanding of issues.

A comparison of votes received in District 3A

A comparison of how my total votes (before adding absentee & provisional votes) in the District 3A stacked up against the votes for Governor Hogan, Corey Stottlemyer, Blaine Young and Billy Shreve shows the following:

• Candidate – Total Votes in District 3A
• Hogan – 10,808
• Stottlemyer – 9,684
• Smith – 9,435
• Young – 8,231
• Shreve – 8,114

These results show that none of us got a significant boost from Larry Hogan’s success.  This may be because the voters were already well enough informed about the issues in our races, such that Larry Hogan was a non-factor in them.   This is certainly plausible because the Young-Gardner campaign got a lot of publicity.  Stottlemyer polled a little better than me (249 votes), but even he did not get seem to get a big boost from Hogan’s coat tails.

Another interesting point is that in District 3A I polled 1204 votes more than Blaine Young and 1321 votes more than Billy Shreve.  To me this shows that many voters differentiated between me and both Blaine and Billy.   All three of us hold similar views on most substantive issues.  Therefore the difference in results appears to be about personal differences between us.

Redistricting secures two seats for two Democrats

In the end, I believe that the biggest factor in my election results was the fact that there are more Democrats than Republicans in District 3A.

The post Post-Election Report and Analysis appeared first on C. Paul and Terry Smith.

I was not successful in capturing one of the two seats for State Delegate in District 3A.  When the results were in at 10:30 p.m. Tuesday night, I was in third place by about 900 votes.  Carol Krimm (at 28%) and Karen Young at (26%) were the two winners.  I received 24% of the vote, and Vickie Wilkins received 22%.  I want to thank all of those who supported and voted for me.  Your friendship and support has been very gratifying.

We knew from the beginning that my race would be close because the State Legislature changed the boundaries of the district two years ago to try to ensure that two Democrats would be able to win both seats.  This redistricting, plus the six mailed hit pieces by the State House Democratic Committee Slate (at an estimated cost of $60,000) helped defeat me.

Thank you again for your support.

Paul Smith

The post Election Results: Maryland House of Delegates appeared first on C. Paul and Terry Smith.

It is most appropriate that the spookiest, scariest day of the year should precede the General Election by just a few days. One of the attractions of Halloween is our fascination with distortion and ugliness—there is a place in our hearts for a certain amount of distortion on Halloween. And so, campaign smears and mis-truths fit right in. For those of you who received from the House Democratic Committee Slate five mailers that presented a distorted and false image of me, I want to help you sort out the Halloween mask from the truth.

Integrity and character are the foundations of my campaign. I may not always be the most flashy candidate, but people can count on me to tell the truth and to give reasons for every vote and decision that I make. I’m not sure that it will be possible in this paid ad to fully address the multiple distortions and misrepresentations made against me in the five Halloween Hit Pieces from the House Democratic Committee Slate, but I will attempt to correct some.

Lie/Distortion # 1. The first mailer stated that I said “women do not belong in the workplace.” I never said this. This is a misrepresentation of my statements and my views.

Lie/Distortion # 2. One mailer stated that my vote to cut Head Start made it “tougher on working families.” This is false. In 2011, when the BOCC transferred the Head Start program to a non-profit entity, this saved the County over $1 million a year, and resulted in NO CUT IN SERVICES to families who place their children in the Head Start program. The YMCA now operates the program.

Lie/Distortion # 3. One piece quoted me as saying “women should stay home and stay married if they want their children to succeed in life, just like his wife did.” This is another misrepresentation; I never said this. The Democratic Committee Slate twisted my words and their meaning, and then added some bad grammar to boot.

Lie/Distortion # 4. When questioned by a reporter from The Washington Post in 2011, I did state the following: “I feel that wherever possible, mothers should be at home with small children.” The Democrat hit piece omitted the introductory qualifier in order to attempt to make a more negative hit on me. Contrary to what the hit piece states, the statement was not made at a BOCC meeting prior to any vote, but rather was made at another place and time.

Lie/Distortion # 5. The fliers portray me as being anti-women and lacking in understanding of women. This is a misrepresentation. As an attorney for over 35 years, I have represented hundreds of women, including dozens of single-parent women with young children. I have represented many of them on a pro bono or reduced fee basis, to help them deal with very difficult financial, marital and children issues. There are few people who truly understand the issues of single mothers as well as I do.

Lie/Distortion # 6. With regard to my contributions to NARTH—Yes, I have made small contributions to NARTH. But the Democratic Committee Slate made a misrepresentation of “reparative therapy.” It is incomplete and therefore misleading to state that this therapy “tries to convert gays and lesbians into hetero-sexuals.” Reparative therapy is voluntary; it is only for those who wish to diminish or change erotic, same-sex attraction that they may be experiencing. Why is it that the Democratic Committee Slate wishes to criticize and belittle those men and women who desire to change same-sex attractions that they may experience? People have a right to choose to become straight as much as to become gay. Why does the Democratic Committee Slate choose to criticize these people? Someone who is not prejudiced would not speak disparagingly of “reparative therapy.”

As an attorney I have had a number of gay clients through the years. I have some now. I represent them with the same thoroughness and vigilance that I do for all my clients. As an attorney, it is not my role to judge them. I respect all of my clients, and I respect all people.

Lie/Distortion # 7. The Democrat attack piece states that my values “are not the values Frederick is built on.” This is not true, and I think most people know it. As far as values are concerned, the House Democratic Committee Slate is the one whose values are a problem. If they had the value of integrity they would not stoop to misrepresentation, mis-statement and ridicule of a particular class of people.

Why is the House Democratic Committee Slate silent on—budget & tax increases, the “Rain Tax,” Common Core and partisan re-districting?

I think we know why—because they support all of these flawed policies. My wife and I have personally delivered my campaign information directly to over 20,000 homes in District 3A. I have written extensively on these issues, and have provided forums and handouts for all who desire to understand them better. My website contains thorough facts and information on these and many other important issues. It is not too late to go there if you desire more information.

No candidate has spoken out more often or more thoroughly on each of these issues. If you care about correcting them, then cast your vote for me.

The five Halloween hit pieces against me were indeed very scary, but remember they were just for Halloween. Enjoy them for what they’re worth, and now that Halloween’s over, put them where they belong–with the candy wrappers, rotting pumpkins and other trash.

The post 5 Halloween Hit Pieces from the House Democratic Committee Slate appeared first on C. Paul and Terry Smith.

Stormwater

I support reasonable measures to clean the Chesapeake Bay.  The problem with Governor O’Malley’s excessive stormwater remediation policies is that

• A) they are too expensive,
• B) they are unfairly harsh and expensive in Frederick County,
• C) they are not being uniformly and universally applied in all Bay watershed jurisdictions, and
• D) they neglect the two major Bay pollutant sources (the water coming over the Conowingo Dam and sewage overflows and spills).

Because of these major flaws, Governor O’Malley’s policies will never clean the Bay, but they will cause serious economic damage to Frederick County.

None of the three opinion pieces in Sunday’s FNP addressed the problems I listed above.  Cleaning the Bay is important, but it must be done in an intelligent, reasonable way.

Md Route 75

We expect the State to help fund improvements in MD 75.  In its lead editorial in Sunday’s Opinion Section, the FNP editors said that “the state won’t help with” the cost of improvements to MD 75.  But the State has not said this.   The fact that there are not currently funds budgeted for it doesn’t mean the State will not do so later.

In stating that the State “won’t” fund improvements to MD 75,  the editors have repeated the baseless and incorrect opinion statements of the vocal residents who fought against approval of the Monrovia Town Center (MTC) development.   Admittedly, this statement is an opinion, but it is not based upon either facts, history or reason.

In fact, the State has not said that it would not help with the improvement to MD 75.  Anti-MTC people have incorrectly argued that the State won’t fund improvements because MTC is not in a Priority  Funding Area (PFA).   This is an incorrect argument for three reasons.   First, although the MTC is not YET in a PFA,  it is expected to be shortly.   Only after the re-zoning Is completed, can this area become eligible to be a PFA.   Second, state PFA requirements provide that road improvements connecting PFAs are also eligible for state funding.  Thus, even if parts of MD 75 are not in a PFA, we expect State funding to improve it, just as the State has done in improving MD 32. Third, the State funds safety improvements regardless of PFA factors.

Frederick County fully expects to receive state funding to be a major contributor to improvements on MD 75.  However, that can only happen when the County makes MD 75 a high priority on its transportation priorities plan.  The Gardner Board completely removed MD 75 from its priority list, but the current Board has reinstated it as a high priority.

The post Stormwater and Route 75 appeared first on C. Paul and Terry Smith.

Today, October 22^nd, residents of Frederick received the third attack mailer from the House Democrats attempting to convince voters NOT to vote for me for Maryland House of Delegates.  This one again portrayed me as being the enemy of working women–a completely false accusation.

In today’s piece they quote me as saying “women should stay home and stay married if they want their children to succeed in life, just like his wife did.”  Not only is their grammar bad, but the Democrats really twisted my words.  Furthermore, the sources they cite are two articles by the liberal Gazette and Frederick NewsPost.  Not only are these not “primary” sources, but the Democrat Slate that wrote the hit piece knows the County link where one can watch the video of exactly what I said.  They misstated me—and did so in a way to try to make me sound bad.

With regard to my contributions to NARTH—Yes, I have made small contributions to NARTH.  But the Democrat Slate made a major misrepresentation of “reparative therapy.”  It is incorrect to state that this therapy “tries to convert gays and lesbians into heterosexuals.”  Reparative therapy is for those who wish to diminish or change erotic, same-sex attraction that they may be experiencing.  It is a voluntary therapy.  Why is it that the Democrat Slate wishes to criticize and belittle those men and women who desire to change the same-sex attraction that they may experience?   People have a right to choose to become straight as much as to become gay.  Why does the Democrat Slate choose to criticize these people?  Someone who is not prejudiced  would not speak disparagingly of “reparative therapy.”

As an attorney I have had a number of gay clients through the years.  I have some now.  I represent them with the same thoroughness and vigilance that I do for all my clients.  As an attorney, it is not my role to judge them.  I respect all of my clients, and I respect all people.

The Democrat attack piece states that my values “are not the values Frederick is built on.”  As far as values are concerned, the Maryland House Democrat Slate is the one whose values are a problem.  If they had the value of integrity they would not stoop to misrepresentation, misstatement and ridicule of a particular class of people.  Shame on the Democrat Slate.

The post Yet Another Attack Piece Full of Misstatements appeared first on C. Paul and Terry Smith.

Jan Gardner, a candidate for County Executive, is repeatedly makes a false accusation that the current BOCC is “giving away $160 million” of taxpayers’ money to “out of state developers.”  It is a major criticism in her campaign mailers, and she repeats it in debates.  Other pro-Gardner supporters repeat it, too.  On October 12^th, the Frederick NewsPost included a lengthy opinion piece by Mindy Hanlon that repeated this misrepresentation.  I wish to correct.  Ms. Hanlon wrote that the current BOCC “is giving away $160 million of future property taxes to residential developers, . . . instead of requiring developers to pay for needed infrastructure.”  This sounds terrible, but it is false and misleading.  It is a misrepresentation that Jan Gardner has been repeatedly made, and it needs to be corrected.

No money is being “given” to the developers—not of future property taxes or any other county funds.  Gardner’s statement is false.  Her misstatement pertains to two “Tax Increment Financing” agreements (TIFs) that the County has approved, and which will fund a needed interchange on I-70 at Meadow Road and the nearly completed interchange on US 340 at Jefferson Tech Park (plus some additional infrastructure there).  The BOCC approved a $25 million TIF for Meadow Road and a $33 million TIF for Jefferson Tech Park.  The total approved TIFs are for $58 million.  The $160 million figure is someone’s estimate of the cost (adding interest) of these TIFs over 30 years, assuming the full amounts are financed.    While $25 million was approved for the Meadow Road TIF, it is anticipated that less than $15 million will be needed—lowering the total, up-front TIF costs to $48 million, and reducing the total with financing by about $30 million.

The payment of this $48 million is to build needed infrastructure.  In the case of Meadow Road, both Frederick County and the City of Frederick badly need the new westbound entrance ramp to I-70 that will be constructed at Meadow Road.  This improvement will be a major benefit to county taxpayers.  We would not be able to obtain this improvement without the TIF.  Similarly, the County will benefit greatly from the new interchange on US 340; it will allow a major commercial and employment center at a location right next to the City of Frederick—in  an “activity center,” which is a perfect location for new jobs, all easily accessible to transit.   The Jefferson Tech Park has been slowly moving forward  for about 20 years, and was moving forward during the years of the Gardner BOCC.  The benefits of both of these TIF-funded projects are very important for County residents, and are well worth the use of TIFs to obtain them.

These projects will be funded from a portion of new tax revenues that would not exist except for the building of the new infrastructure.    Because of the limited duration of the TIFs, after a period of 25-30 years, the increment taxes will then go entirely into the County’s general fund.  In the meantime, the TIFs will bring in new income tax revenues to the County, and the TIFs will fund critical road improvements and provide a major economic boost to the County.

While the benefit of these two TIF projects can be debated, it is false and misleading to label the $48 million infrastructure improvements as “giving away $160 million of future property taxes to residential developers.”

The post Correcting False Accusations that the BOCC is “giving away $160 million” appeared first on C. Paul and Terry Smith.