Letters to the editor

Thank you

To the town of St. Ignatius Volunteer Fire Department:

Thank you for being who you are — volunteers who are there when someone calls “help!”

I am especially grateful to the Mission volunteer firemen who answered our call at the Mission Dam homesite on Friday, April 13 when my daughter, son-in-law and their children (my grandkids) lost their home to fire.

Your quick response was greatly appreciated, along with the St. Ignatius Ambulance Service and Mission Valley Power folks. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and thank you for what you do.

Frank Acevedo and family

St. Ignatius

Vote for Mowbray

The primary election is fast approaching on June 5. I’m supporting and voting for Senator Carmine Mowbray to enable her to continue to serve us in the Montana State Senate. I know she would appreciate your consideration and vote also.

I have known Senator Mowbray for almost 10 years through Lake County’s flying community. On behalf of the Montana Pilot’s Association, the local Chapter of EAA and the Recreational Aviation Foundation, Carmine consistently shows up and volunteers her time and energy at work parties, in the annual fly-ins and she gladly flies kids at no cost for the Young Eagles program.

With over three decades of experience owning and operating small businesses, raising a family of four children and generally being involved in the betterment of her community, Senator Mowbray is well-qualified. She brings her business acumen and conservative, common-sense approach to the Montana State Legislature to serve Senate District 6, which encompasses part of Lake and Flathead Counties and the Flathead Reservation. Carmine’s experience has given her valuable skills to listen, speak up and represent us well.

Please remember to vote in the primary either by mail or on June 5 at the polls. This is an extremely important election.

Ron Normandeau

Polson

Support Taylor

Janna Taylor has my vote. She has proven herself to be honest, dependable and very hard working. I asked her if she paid for polling in our area. She said she hates polls and would never waste her time or money. She prefers to hear from us directly. If someone tells you that she ordered a poll, let them know the truth!

Janna is pro agriculture, pro-business, pro-education, pro-life and pro-Montana! That is why she has my enthusiastic support.

Mike Meuli

Dayton

Hanson reply

I have read Bob Hanson’s views with great interest. Unfortunately, that interest has led to the conclusion that Bob Hanson is practicing hypocrisy of the finest sort. In his most recent letter, he decries ‘anonymous criticism’ and supposed unethical behavior of trustees. He criticizes them for “ignoring the comments of people who have stood up in support of our youngest principals—but happily citing the (many?) negative comments they have received from anonymous sources and acting on those.”

I would call Mr. Hanson’s attention to a school board meeting just over a year ago, when he did exactly that. The occasion was the dismissal of Assistant Principal Shawn Hendrickson, without cause, supposedly because of some anonymous comments. Bob Hanson was only too willing at that time to ignore the comments of literally dozens of students, staff and community members who stood up at the school board meeting in support of Mr. Hendrickson, and rely on a few anonymous comments to remove a highly qualified, popular and competent administrator.

I believe Bob Hanson is the pot calling the kettle black. I suggest that the Polson community and Polson schools would be better served by someone with a tad less hypocrisy in their makeup. It should be over for Mr. Hanson.

Alan Mikkelsen

St. Ignatius

Political concern

What is it with candidates for political office these days? When we have issues of major, major importance looming before the world, they spend their time arguing and fighting with each other about contraception, abortion, the price of gas and gay rights. Is this the level of political concern of ‘we the people’ in America today? Is this what we are worried about? Heaven help us if it is.

Last week President Obama attended, with 60 other nations, a summit in South Korea on the subject of securing nuclear material to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.

And a snippet of a conversation between Obama and the Russian president got front page headlines, was picked up by candidate Romney who made disparaging remarks about the “snippet of conversation” but nothing about the importance of securing nuclear material to keep it out of the hands of terrorists. Is this the man most qualified to be leader of the free world, our Commander in Chief who declares Russia as “Our No. 1 geopolitical foe” at a time when what this world needs is cooperation, consensus and resolution of old distrusts and hatreds?

What is it that ‘we the people’ really want and need? Do we know? Are we concerned, or are we so caught up in the fascination and entertainment value of infantile behavior and playground style fighting among and between political people that we have lost sight of what America is really all about?

It seems to me that we had better put on our rational hats over sensible brains during the next few months and listen with wise discernment to what is going on, what is being said, and what is not being said if we are to make proper choices at the polls in November.

Bob McClellan

Polson

America’s Holocaust

I have just listened to a most eloquent pro life speech delivered at the Holocaust Museum.

President Obama spoke with seeming sincerity of the value of all life and expressed his hope that all human life will continue to be defended in our society. He praised the leaders of the times of the Holocaust who helped bring an end to Hitler’s Regime.

President Obama knows that life begins at the moment of conception. He knows what is taken in an abortion is the life of a human being. It is so sad that these words were spoken by the most pro-abortion president that has ever led our nation.

I hope his message will be repeated over and over and over until all of America will come to realize that “abortion” is America’s Holocaust!

If that does not happen, then the words “All life is sacred from the moment of conception to its natural end” will echo down in history as only slogans with no life at all.

Rita Senkler

Polson

Impact fees

The city of Polson’s 13-page Impact Fee ordinance [624] is legally flawed. This fact was publicly revealed by the letter from an outside attorney, Bob Long in January when he concluded the ordinance as written was unenforceable.

The city on April 16 had a first reading of a new 21-page ordinance 661, drafted by James Raymond, which is intended to correct the error of the earlier document.

Some subdivision lots remain exempt from fees, specifically those in Phase 1 of Ridgewater, Phase 2 of the Mission Bay Orchard Preserve and the city attorney’s Hideaway subdivision. The first two were listed by the city on a list dated 3/26/12 of owners eligible for a refund. The last is known because the city attorney was exempted from paying fees for his home in his subdivision.

At the council meeting on 4/16 Sharon Fulton asked if the city attorney would be eligible to build another home that would be exempt from paying fees. The response was silence from the mayor thru whom all questions are directed.

Since there has been no public discussion of the origin of the original ordinance, Judy Preston, a former council member, asked if Mr. Raymond was the author of the legally flawed document. A responsive answer would be, yes, no or I do not know but he is sitting here so we will ask. The answer from the mayor was, “he was the attorney in 2007.”

As citizens we are required to financially support a local government. Whether that government is honestly responsive to questions is dependent on the citizenry forcing behavior it finds acceptable. If you or someone you know owns an undeveloped lot in an old subdivision, it may be a surprise to find that building on that lot will carry with it a bill for impact fees now defined as about $7,000 in addition to other permits from the city.

All citizens should take the time to read the new ordinance and in general should call their council representatives with any questions or concerns about their government.

Bob Fulton

Polson

Agenda 21

Agenda 21 came out of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The creation of ICLEI in 1990 preceded the creation of Agenda 21. Maurice Strong was the opening speaker at the 1992 UN conference. Following is a quote from Mr. Strong’s opening speech:

“...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations...”

This general statement of the goals of Agenda 21 from Mr. Strong coupled with the specifics contained in the actual document should be cause of great concern for all Americans. Most readers of this letter will not know who Maurice Strong is and therefore may attribute little significance to his statement. However, our then president, George H.W. Bush, committed the United States to the Agenda 21 program but was unable to implement Agenda 21 in the United States as Congress would not pass the measure.

In June of 1993, Bill Clinton signed an Executive order establishing the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in an effort to begin implementation of Agenda 21 goals, thus bypassing the need for Congressional approval. This type of move by a president should seem very familiar in light of what has been happening in Washington, D.C. lately.

When someone tells me that that they support Agenda 21, I question why they would support a program whose purpose is to take away their private property, force them into high rise housing in high density housing tracts, restrict them from any using most lands in the United States, and the list of limitations on personal freedom for the citizen goes on.

I can see three reasons why someone could and would support this type of program. First, the person may have heard that Agenda 21 is a program to save the environment and we all want to save the environment.

The person may, however, know nothing about the details of how the goals of saving the environment will be accomplished or at what cost to humans. Second, the individual may have only partial knowledge of the contents of the document and not have done due diligence to completely understand how the goals will be met.

Third, is the possibility that the individual does completely understand the goals of the program, and agrees with them.

Individuals falling into the first two categories can be accused of ignorance in failing to completely understand Agenda 21.

How would you describe someone who knowingly pushes an agenda whose purpose is to control the American public through environmental dictates?

David Koger

Ronan