MURRIETA OPEN FORUM - Get it said, get it read, communications for the community.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

"Making the Deal Happen"

“Making the Deal Happen,” Councilman McAllister Closes the Circle of Dots.

by Edward Faunce

Funny how things get discovered. If ex-Councilman van Haaster hadn’t abused his public office, we would not have had a recall; we would not have uncovered the out-of-the-area developer financial engine driving our City’s development; we would not have discovered that the Murrieta’s Chamber of Commerce isn’t really run by Murrieta businesses; we would not have exposed the County GOP party as a partner to the business interests profiting from the rapid development of Murrieta; and we would not have seen so clearly that the local media, the City Police and Fire Unions, the career politicians, the Chamber, and the developers are all allied in one common goal -- develop Murrieta, get a slice of the profits and do it NOW.

Seemingly innocuous events - when seen in a larger context - tell a completely different story than perhaps intended. In 2003, Doug McAllister threw his hat into the Murrieta City Council ring. He had already served on the City Planning and Steering Commissions thereby enabling developers to assess his desirability. Although he received their support, he still needed to get elected. McAllister ran a populist campaign in two areas of the City which historically are the controlling voting areas, the seniors. So, his campaign was aimed at the Colony and the newly annexed Murrieta Hot Springs area of Murrieta.

McAllister’s goals, according to the League of Women Voters:
• Protect Murrieta's History while Building Murrieta's Future Vision.
• Identify what Murrieta wants to be when we grow up, and getting us there.
• Eliminate the symptoms of leadership dysfunction: traffic, lack of police/fire, parks, etc.


On November 3, 2003, McAllister was elected to the City Council. But rather than eliminating the symptoms of leadership dysfunction, he became a third vote on a 3 to 2 voting block which continued Murrieta’s headlong rush to build out. The recall movement swept McAllister up beginning in June of 2004 because he was seen as merely an extension of van Haaster and Seyarto.

In August 2004, McAllister came out of the small businessman closet and announced a career change. He said he was selling his glass etching business, and armed with a new real estate license, he was going into the development consulting business. He also announced that he was thinking of starting a new monthly newspaper (The Murrieta Insider) by partnering with Planning commissioner Steve Rawlings. (See “Councilman switches careers” by Laura Mitchell, Californian, August 28, 2004)

Immediately, McAllister was challenged about the wisdom of a City Council member partnering with a Planning Commissioner because appeals from the Planning Commission’s decisions were heard by the City Council. On August 29, 2004, the Californian printed a letter from me pointing out the conflict of interest and asking:

“I thought that the City Council was supposed to sit in judgment on appealed decisions from the Planning Commission. So how is Councilman McAllister going to exercise neutral and independent judgment over his business partner's decisions? Who's going to resign, McAllister or Rawlings? One, or both, have to give up their official positions to avoid this obvious conflict of interest.” (Letter by Ed Faunce, printed in the Californian, August 29, 2004)

Shortly thereafter, McAllister purportedly withdrew from the newspaper venture and his announced career change fell off the radar screen. In an earlier posting on this Blog, I asked Councilman Seyarto if he knew what Councilman
McAllister was doing about his new career. Councilman Seyarto wrote:

“Ed, why ask me what Doug does for a living? Go ask him. Last I knew he was working with a real estate firm. But whatever he's doing it is certainly more noble than helping the Howdy's of the world get a free ride on all us taxpayers. Well, the gutter is always fun to visit, as long as I don't have to take up residence there. I am ready to go back to the constructive dialogue when everyone else is. Good night. By Kelly Seyarto, at Tuesday, October 04, 2005 11:53:10 PM”

I haven’t asked Mr. McAllister, but I did discover at least one business where he has landed. If you go to the website link embedded in this post's title and you will find a Temecula business that advertises itself as “Golden Real Estate & Investments, specializes in working with investors, land developers and builders to find property that suits their needs. . . .”

The Golden Eagle Real Estate company also lists its employees and describes what each contributes to their business purpose. Here is what is published about Doug McAllister:

“Strategic Resource – DOUG McALLISTER’s record of positive impact on the valley’s business environment is well known. Currently a member of Murrieta’s City Council, Doug has also served on many boards including the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce’s Executive Board. Doug brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to every deal. And making the deal happen is his specialty.

Doug made his mark in the Valley early on by starting and growing a local business that won the Business of the Year award on two separate occasions. Feeling his talents and strengths could be put to better use; he sold that business and moved into Commercial Real Estate. He began looking for a firm that had the kind of strengths that would compliment his.

Golden Real Estate & Investments fit that bill perfectly. As a result, the talented Golden Real Estate Team can make wonderful things happen for buyers, sellers, entrepreneurs , investors…you. . . .”


A check of the State Real Estate Licenses does not reveal that McAllister has a real estate license. We know that his education and experience has not been in real estate, much less commercial real estate, so, we ask: “Just what does McAllister bring to the commercial real estate development table?”

The quoted blurb from Golden Real Estate lays it right on the line. McAllister is on the Murrieta City Council, he has connections and his specialty is GETTING THE DEAL DONE.Translated into ordinary language, the intended message is that Golden Real Estate has hired a Murrieta City Councilman with inside connections and if you bring your development business here, you’ve got a leg up on other developers because we’ve got political connections.

So, McAllister has finished connecting the dots. He has shown us that we really did get the picture. The place to make money is to be on the inside helping to push the development of Murrieta and Southwest Riverside County. If you have no particular real estate development skills, it’s OK to sell your political position. (Actually Kevin Jeffries’s sell-out shows that this process has expanded to the entire County.)

The dots are connected and the circle is complete. The developers will support residents for Council membership who demonstrate a willingness to vote approval for their projects. Further, even if you have no particular background or skills in development consulting, as a Council member, you can still be a “strategic resource” valuable enough to be part of a consulting team.

Now, before Rholmgren and others get all bent out of shape claiming that RM’ers are trying to deflect attention away from “their boy, Warnie,” this article was prepared before WE’s arrest occurred. The article was not submitted to Mr. Kunkle while the discussion of WE’s situation was “hot and heavy.” That discussion has petered out, so now is the time to consider our entire City Council dilemma.

Oh, and to those bloggers who say “I’m sick and tired of all this negativity and you’re just giving Murrieta a bad name” – you are so wrong. A recent book “Attention Deficit Democracy” has chronicled the demise of “real democracy” in America. Inattention to what is really happening is destroying democracy in America. The message is that we must notice the negative. If we don’t know what’s wrong, we will not be able to fix it.

Sorry, but in my judgment, Doug McAllister has demonstrated poor judgment over and over. We all know about his personal problems, but I refer to his collusion with Seyarto to try to cover up for van Haaster on the day-care center; his ill-advised decision to enter into partnership with a sitting Planning Commissioner, Rawlings, the hocus-pocus political campaign in 2003 claiming to be a small businessman who understood the need to cure a dysfunctional City leadership which then morphed into a full-blown development consultant touting his Council office as his strategic resource. How could McAllister allow the Golden Real Estate company to advertise his Council membership on its website? Or, even worse, maybe he doesn’t see how mentioning his Council Office looks like he’s selling his City Office?

And finally, to all of you who say that all this turmoil is giving Murrieta a bad name, cheer up. We are actually rescuing Murrieta’s name. Many, many people stopped me while collecting signatures on the recall petitions and asked “Can you tell me how we can do the same thing in my City?” Many of those asking were from other states, even one, I remember, from Hawaii.

Rholmgren is fond of calling RM’ers whining do-nothing people. How wrong he is. It is the spirit of the Boston Tea Party, the Declaration of Independence and the desire to really participate in a government “of , by and for the people” that drives the attempt to clean out our City Council.

We need developers, but we need developers who will stop trying to buy easy access and special favors from our representatives. We need City Council members who are absolutely committed to doing what is right for the long-range benefit of Murrietans. That is not possible when those on the Council are the recipients of developer monies.

- Ed Faunce

147 Comments:

  • Deflect, deflect, deflect.

    Anything's better than bashing a RM good ole boy, right?

    And as to the timing of when this got drop'd in this blog, if you think we can't spot it a mile away, you should get your eyes checked.

    Face it - WE's dirty, RM's hanging it's head in shame and there's nothing they can do but cast rocks at DM. I'm sure a new entry about KS is next.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:08:00 PM  

  • Kelly, Kelly, Kelly-RM is not hanging its head at all. Read the next post. But, what message do you think was intended by Mentioning DM's council membership?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 12:08:00 AM  

  • Someone put the group in perfect perspective when they called Seyarto the bully for the Chamber of Commerce bunch. VanHaaster and Dan Stephenson are the people pulling the political strings and McAlister is just the dopy easy vote in all this trying to make an easy buck.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 11:46:00 AM  

  • Ed,

    Just like any other attorney, are very good at conducting the necessary research to make your case. If you really want to be of service to the people of Murrieta and our “Watch Dog”, then Do us all a favor and follow the "money trail". Warnie Enoches, has a reputation in his business life of not doing anything without a financial kick-back tied to it. Just ask many of contractors in this valley; what has come out about his personal life and business is not a big secret in that community. He has done business that way for years.

    Check into his votes and the projects he may have received as a result of his “yes” or “no” votes. Perhaps his Lambs Fellowship contract in Lake Elsinore is tied to some decision in Murrieta? Dig into how he has used his position in the city over the last 10 years to build his business. Talk with the Contractors in the valley and ask about Warnie’s business reputation. You might be surprised!

    Look into Warnie’s published disclosures; how does some who claims he makes 35,000 per year, afford a Ferrari? How did he get a house for a dollar, which is now worth over a million? Just how has he used his position on City council to benefit himself? The Murrieta council votes are public record; look into it.

    If you are going to take the time to connect the dots, then connect all of them; don’t be so selective because of your personal axe to grind with the existing leadership. The real issue today, is Warnie’s 14 Feloney Charges, let’s don’t loose sight of the fact that this is an embarrassment to all of us.

    Be careful of what you write in a blog, you just might be Libel. Free speech does not give you the right to make false accusations, be careful.

    I’m eagerly waiting for your follow up report regarding the Enoches Investigation.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 2:21:00 PM  

  • a question, has anyone thought that Murreita would be better with Ed?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 2:26:00 PM  

  • You mean without Ed, right?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 2:27:00 PM  

  • Yes!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 2:28:00 PM  

  • 2:21, why don't you put forth your accusations and list the contractors for us to contact? The developers that you say have made a kick back? Post where Enochs claimed he only made $35,000 per year. State some of the votes that enabled special interests or people that could benefit Enochs personally? Tell us a couple of votes you feel that he made for his own interest? Show us where he bought a million dollar home for a dollar through his Council membership? List the contractors that you say Enochs has had or done unethical business with?

    What you forget is WE is only 20% of the City Council. We have another 60% that have been linked directly to the development community. Who else but Doug would want to expose all of WE's dirty laundry? He's the only politician to attack another.But then again, he doesn't want to hurt the City with domestic problems. WE should do what he did and just RUN OUT on his family. Just like you ran out on the city when it called on you to be Mayor.

    If you can't do state those things then youre as credible as Seyarto is when he says his vote hasn't been bought.

    This is the second "threat" on here toward someone who is stating his or her opinion about libel. Seyarto made the first toward me for my opinion and the only people that would have that high a concern for Ed's future civil law suits would be those suing him, as any normal resident could care less. So Dougie or Kelly, here is the FACT about libel. If an individual knows what he is saying is false it is libel. However, if he feels that what he is saying is true, be it actually true or false, it is not libel and it is allowed under our freedom of speech rights in the Bill of Rights. If that was not the way the law is acted upon, Rush Limbaugh would have already been put to death in the gas chamber.

    So Kelly or Dougie or whatever organization or family member that benefits from those two, please start suing residents for posting our personal opinions. I would love in this election year for a City Council member to sue one of us and try to limit our rights. But what the heck, who cares about our civil liberties today? Right.

    So Doug or whoever you are, why tell Ed these facts? Better yet, do what you should do, tell the City Attorney or the County DA. Why would Ed do YOUR investigation for you? Do it yourself!! Be a real man for this community.

    But what you are really trying to do is attack Ed, because he is attacking you, trying to prove his motives are just against You and Kelly. It isn't for the best interest of all of Murrieta. Thats where your wrong. Ed is talking about one aspect of our City government and thats the connection between the Development Corporations and the votes by our Councilmen which cause massive problems for every resident. But if you really want him to start digging maybe he should see how our Councilmen treat the children they have created?

    So why don't you get in your car and cruise Murrieta for some illegals and call the police on them. But please don't cruise anywhere near a development project because if you do, you may have to close down the whole project for all the illegals working for these builders.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 2:55:00 PM  

  • Jeff, Doug has run out on his kids, his business and this town.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 2:58:00 PM  

  • It is now clear that Dougie has opened the door for everyones personal life to be at issue. Sooo Dougie, tell us about your personal life especially where it involves the children and wife you left. Tell us the truth. By the way, I would think that since you call yourself a pastor, when its convienent,you would look to counsel Warnie. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Aren't you suppose to go to the person first?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 3:21:00 PM  

  • 2:26, 27 & 28 - You are someone who goofed up, made it look like someone else caught the goof, and then answered your own question, all within three minutes. So, you are both incompetent and deceptive, and trying hard to appear clever. All this added together would make any reader wonder: Are you Doug?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 3:48:00 PM  

  • To Anon 2:21, who said: "I’m eagerly waiting for your follow up report regarding the Enoches Investigation."

    You have proceeded from unwarranted assumptions. I'm not conducting an investigation into any Council man's purely private business. My criticism of DM was based on the the connection to his City duties. For example, he ran for the Council claiming to be a "small businessman" and then changed careers to join the very businesses that he was elected to resist. Secondly, by allowing the advertising of his services, based on his City Council's membership, is improperly trading on the City's name.

    The allegations you have made about WE are properly the subject for investigation by other agencies. I do not have either the time or the resources.

    So what are you saying? That's it's OK for DM to hold himself out for hire to developers touting his City Council membership? If so, please explain.

    You also said: "If you are going to take the time to connect the dots, then connect all of them; don’t be so selective because of your personal axe to grind with the existing leadership. The real issue today, is Warnie’s 14 Feloney Charges, let’s don’t loose sight of the fact that this is an embarrassment to all of us."

    Well you are wrong. The selection of the three Jvh, KS and DM came about because the developers, the Chamber, the County careers pols, the media, the city unions etc. all selected them as a group. As a resident I am entitled to ask, WHY? I'm entitled to see if I can discover WHY $600K was invested in them by the very interests that would leave myself, and all other Murrietans, with the job of cleaning up after they have moved on.

    WE is was not one they supported. So, you may be embarrassed by WE's charges, but that is very different than having your property taxes hiked or the value of your home diminished because of poor planning and execution of Murrieta's development.

    You don't need to be embarrassed about WE. Stand up for what's right. He's innocent until proven guilty. He can serve until convicted. That's what John Harper, City Attorney, said. If WE is convicted, then the law will take care of him. Toughen up. Defend the Constitution. These days, it needs some support.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 4:02:00 PM  

  • To Anons 2:26, 2:27, 2:28. Would Murrieta be better off without Ed?

    I see, it's the old kill the messenger because we don't want the bad news.

    What? Do you think that all these problems would go away if I said nothing?

    Let's see if I shut up, Dan Stephenson and his developer friends will probably stop picking Council members, they will disband their bogus PAC, van Haaster will abandon the day-care center project, McAllister will demand that any reference to his Council membership be stricken from his employers' website, etc. etc.

    Yes, and we will all move to the "Big Rock Candy Mountain."

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 4:09:00 PM  

  • Jeff,

    Let Ed talk for himself, he brought to light all of findings from his investigations and posted them in this blog. I want to keep him honest and make sure the he covers all of the bases. after all, what is good for the goose...you know the rest.

    I've pointed him in the right direction, the question is whether or not he will he pursue these points with the same zeal as he does KS, DM. Maybe Ed really is a one issue canidate, errrrrr "Watch Dog" we'll see.

    As far as the other parts of your rants to my comments; they have nothing to do with the points that I made. You are just trying to distract from my points. Illegals? What does that have to do with the topic of discussion?

    Nothing that DM said in the Californian or the PE had anything to do with Warnie's family. There were no personal attacks of any kind, It was very specific regarding the distraction to city business.

    Do you really think that Warnie can manage his time effiently enough to care for his family, run a business, fight 14 Felony Charges, contest a bitter divorce and be a city coucilman? I don't.... something or everthing will suffer.

    As far as personal attacks are conerned we all know that they were started by Rescue Murrieta, Tom Butler and Nancy Knight in 2003. Shall we go check the record?

    I'm waiting Ed.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 4:28:00 PM  

  • Concerning your posty above regarding libel so if I referred to that gin blossom sprouting on Ed's face merely of itself, that's not libelous, but if I publicly infer that said gin blossom is the result of a close personal acquaintance with John Barleycorn, that could be libelous if I knew it WAS false or WASN'T false. Could you clarify that for me?
    Confused

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 4:46:00 PM  

  • Kelly your style is unmistakeable....why do you post as an anon?
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 5:15:00 PM  

  • To Anon 4:28, who said:
    "Let Ed talk for himself . . . "

    I did -- see my response at 4:02 and 4:09.

    Also Anon 4:28 asks "Should we go check the record?" regarding who started personnel attacks on Doug McAllister.

    By all means, Mr. Anon, please do. I think you will find that it was members of McAllister's first family that brought the subject to light. I went to the "record" as you asked and here is what I found. The first statement about Doug McAllister's personal family problems was the following letter addressed to Murrietan voters in October 2004:

    "Dear Voters,

    "It would seem, in a beautiful, rapidly growing area like Murrieta, that the voters should have a more appropriate roster of City Council members than one that included the name of Douglas McAllister. Whatever happened to honesty and good character in public office?

    "Do any of the voters realize he has been a first-class wife and family deserter? While acting as a minister of the Gospel, he walked out and left his wife and two very young children [approx. age 5 and 7] and skipped the country. Australia became his country of choice.

    "Do any of the voters know anyone who knew him then? Until the recent tragic death of Bryan McAllister, in an automobile accident, he had not even seen his children for over ten years much less supported them. Bryan's mother struggled all those years to not only support her family, but also to attend college part-time and work until she received her Master's Degree to enter the teaching profession.

    "Douglas McAllister became very visible when he thought he could reap sympathy and support to further his political aspirations. Do we really need someone in public office whose character traits are so sadly lacking - God help us if the answer is "yes".

    Dorothy Davis, great-grandmother"

    So we see that the record is that neither RM, Tom Butler or Nancy Knight was the source of information about DM's personal family issues. It was the Great-Grandmother.

    Does that put this matter to rest for you Anon?

    Edward Faunce

    PS To Murrieta T, thanks for locating the reference to DM's real estate license. But this raises the question, inasmuch as he has been licensed, did he recevie any instruction regarding the use of public office in business advertising?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 5:24:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren, did you read my reason given above?

    Once more, I was investigating why the developers plowed $600K into Jvh, KS and DM. The developers did not back WE or DO. Therefore, there is no reason for me to investigate any connection between either of those two council members and the developer/Chamber/career pols, etc.

    By asking why I don't investigate WE, you seem to think that I'm obligated to change the focus of what I was doing. Wrong.

    Don't forget, the same people who supported JvH, KS and DM also attacked me personnally. I got an entire 4-page glossy devoted just to me! I have an additional interest in understanding who and what would do that. WE and DO did not attack me.

    So, to all you anti-recallers, do your own investigation and quit ragging on me. I'm not going to do your work for you.

    Deal with it, OK?

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 8:35:00 PM  

  • Roy,
    Why don't YOU investigate WE for your pals Kelly and deadbeat Dougie? And while youre doing that investigation, why don't you do a little wiretapping, I heard it's OK to do as long as you say it's to catch terrorists. The way Kelly implied all the things WE is doing he is probably a member of Al Queda too.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, January 27, 2006 9:07:00 PM  

  • Rholgrem,
    give it up! EF is a champion at presenting his view. He is never wrong, he will not own up to anything, he is a lawyer and will wear you out defending everything he writes, speaks and does. Not a chance to get him to be open to your point of view, he is too busy defending and justifying his agenda. Notice also, he is always right.
    What a nightmare it would be to have him on the council.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 12:07:00 AM  

  • Rholly, You still don't get what RM is all about. No matter how many times it has been said, especially how RM was started in the parking lot of city hall, you still all want to give credit to WE. AGAIN, RM is about the people taking back their town from big developers and special interest groups trying to turn this town into a s... hole and then leaving. It's about the lies and deceit of the JvH, KS, DM trio. Sorry to dissapoint you all but WE wasn't in the parking lot that night. GET OVER IT!!!!! Your "side" may have the big money but we are the people for the people and the people shall speak at the ballot box.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 12:16:00 AM  

  • First to Jeff and your 5:15 post, I'm not Kelly, Doug or Jack. Different Player, guess again.

    I also want to understand your post at 2;55, where you say the Bill of Rights, gives you the right to make False Accusations or statements’ demeaning someone’s character is allowed under the Bill of Rights because you “FEEEEEEEL” them to be true?

    Jeff, I think that could be the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. I think you need to re-read the Bill of Rights again… If that were the case than reporters would not need reliable sources, documentation, in other words PROOF. Someone under your view of the Bill of Rights could say anything about anyone, without consequence, I’m sorry that's just not the case. Just because you want something to be True does not make it so.
    Jeff, I would check with your buddy Ed, the attorney, but I’m sure all false statements or accusations could fall under the following:

    Slander – Spoken Word
    Libel – Written Word
    Defamation of Character

    I hope this helps you…..

    Ed, Roy is right about the information regarding WE it is very common knowledge. My comments in a prior post go directly to abuse of position and use of the office for personal gain in his personal life.

    Open your eyes and look at the homes, cars, toys etc… of the councilmen and you tell me who is really benefiting from his city position. I think you will find the suspicious one is Warnie.

    My question for you is whether or not you have the “intellectual honesty” or integrity to shine your light and efforts on someone who supports your interest?

    If not, then you and your organization have no credibility and your existance is just for opposition and offers no solutions. Ed, wrong is wrong no matter who it is. You need to quit splitting hairs and call it like it is regarding Warnie.

    Your right about one thing, I've always said that WE is innocennt until proven guilty and I awlays defend the constitution no matter what the cost. I mean no matter what the cost. However, I would expect sponser of the City Council Ethics Code would take the high road and fall on his sword, resign and not take the people of Murrieta through the sorted details of his life. What WE has failed to realize is that his political career is done whether he resigns or not. Right now he is just taking up space and needs to step aside.

    Finally, for the record on personal attacks, they did not start with DM and his ex wife or family, they started with the personal comments made in council session in June and July last year and through the recall election, by RM and your supporters. Ed also for the record, DM ex-wife did not make an issue of anything during DM's campaign in 2003. Why's that? They are clearlly the result of promting from Nancy Knight and Tom Butler. I say Tom Butler, soley becasuse of his horrible personal attack during public comments. Personally, if someone said those things to me, people would to pull me off of them, but that's just me.

    Good Luck, I can't to see what you come back with. Look into how Warnie has used his posistion as councilman to benefit himself personally. The trail is there if you just look....

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:38:00 AM  

  • Kelly,
    The only people that would defend or even talk about a libel or defamation suit would be the person that felt it was happening to them. DAH!!! But please feel free to sue me at anytime. I would love to have a major public battle with you in court of freedom of speech!!

    Secondly, who here is defending WE? He should leave the Council. He said he's not leaving and all your behind the scenes talk will not make him leave. We know you want him to go so you can quickly bring in another MADE man.

    Back a few months ago, you kept talking about WE's toys and I asked you why you were so jealous because thats all you would talk about. You are the only poster to ever mention or care about the things he owned and here you are doing it again. If you need some extra cash, all you have to do is ask, I'll lend you a couple of dollars.

    So here is our default Mayor defending a man who got caught trying to use his position for personal gain (JVH) and defending a man who ran out on his kids (DM). You have great friends Kelly. Would the next person you endorse be a predator?
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:56:00 AM  

  • To Anon 7:38, you have stated that RM must stop "splitting hairs" and investigate WE.

    RM's best answer comes from Rholmgren who said: "We do not need to investigate. Your boy is doing a great job at self destructing. You reap what you sow."

    Look, WE's current investigation is being conducted under the direction of the Riverside County District Attorney's office. Let that investigation and prosecution take its course. Their are far more resources there to do the work and present the case.

    But beyound that, everything you have said about WE refers to his allegedly obtaining personal gain. That is qualitatively different from the charge that the trio (Jvh, KS, DM) were acting to benefit the special developer and Chamber interests.

    But here's the question posed by this blog posting: "Do you see anything wrong with DM allowing Golden Real Estate etc. to advertise that He is a 'strategic resource' a Murrieta City Councilman whose specialty is 'making the deal happen?'"

    The question all you anti-recallers must ask yourselves is whether City Council membership is something to be used for personal gain as opposed to being a public responsibility?

    Simply asking the question provides the answer, right?

    So, we have shown that DM has allowed his City Council membership to be advertised as a "strategic resource" to the developer-investment community. That's a fact. Is that OK with you?

    It is not an answer to complain that WE has also obtained personal gain.

    RM is not a general all-purpose watch-dog organization. RM is designed to provide ordinary Murrietans a collective voice to say to the developer-investor special interests that we are not impotent. That we residents can form an organization to challenge your money power. That the ballot box is mightier than the bank account.

    The first thing that had to be accomplished was the smashing of that voting block. Now, even though that was accomplished, recent events have demonstrated that the special interests are continuing their drive to control the Council. So RM must focus it attention and efforts on keeping the beach head and then moving forward.

    You say that RM will have no credibility if we do not change our focus. But that's for RM to decide, one decision at a time.

    So, let's get back to the point of this post, What's your answer about DM's Council Office advertised as a strategic resource?

    We're all waiting for your response.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:30:00 AM  

  • To Murrieta T, I think your "disclose" comment may be too forgiving to DM. Do you really think the reference to the Murrieta City Council office was a disclosure? Or was it an invitation?

    I think a disclosure type statement would have to be worded much differently.

    But even beyond that, the location of the statement shows that it was intended to entice potential customers to use Golden Real Estate. The statment was made on the web page where all four employees/owners were giving their special qualifications to show that they had the ability to assist investors in making money.

    But you do raise a different consideration when you say that DM should be careful not to vote on any project where he, or his employer, has provided services.

    John Harper, City Attorney, took that position shortly after DM announced his career change.

    Of course DM would be disqualified from voting on a project which he, or his employer, had a financial interest. But here we are asking the question whether DM should allow his Council membership to used to entice even non-Murrieta projects into the Golden Real Estate (GRE) portfolio?

    If a developer/investor has two different projects proceeding simultaneously, one in Murrieta and one not, would it be permissible for DM to vote on the Murrieta project just because his employer was not involved? What if GRE were bidding for the outside Murrieta project?

    There are many other scenarios which could place the interests of Murrietans in second place.

    My definition of whether DM has a conflict of interest is to ask the following question: When faced with a City Council issue, does it even enter my mind for a moment 'I wonder if my vote will adversely impact my future economic interest in representing the developer/investor community?'"

    If the answer is "Yes, I'm concerned that it might cost me business," then I think the Council member is in a conflict of interest placing his personal interest above his fiduciary responsibility to the City and its residents.

    That's why I think John Harper's formulation of a conflict of interest was too narrow.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:52:00 AM  

  • 738 - Its your word that youre not kelly. Fine, maybe not in body, but in mind soul spirit, and probably in bank account (legally of course, you lawsuit-threat hinting toughie you). You hint also that youre a "player". There is NO player on kelly's team that does not benefit directly or other wise from developer campaign donations, including mediocre city employees looking for job security and planning commission members and family members of kelly and his "partners". So "player", what position do you play on this darkly distinguished team of self-interested public blood suckers?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 1:04:00 PM  

  • well said, rholmgren, well said.

    Ill go one further for you and 12:07 too. Let him think he is always right. Let the weak minded follow his word and make it their creed. What do we care? RM will self-implode. You can see it coming from a mile away.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 1:29:00 PM  

  • All this talk by Kelly and the Kelly Girls and Kelly Boys about Kelly suing Jeff is interesting.

    Just think where that would lead. The public scrutiny that would be given to some of the things Kelly has said over the months on this blog. Some of it he has later kind of, sort of, apologized for. Things he can not ever erase unless this blog is forced off the web. May be Kelly or one of his pals will try to do just that.

    Kelly is is own worst enemy, but he is also the worst enemy of anyone who thinks he is a friend. Just ask Jack Van Haaster what he, in truth, thinks of what Kelly did to his position. No don't bother, cause he won't tell you the truth. The first mayor in this city's history to be recalled. Even if he gets elected again, he will always be remembered as the mayor who got the boot. That could not have happened without the friendship of Kelly.

    So Kelly pipe up. Are you going to sue Jeff? Do you want the whole world's attention to be doused in the kind of muck you have thrown? Barely concealed accusations and threats. "Let's see who gets the last big belly laugh in the end," you wrote in your macho guy style. And you boasted somewhere about who has the bigger "kahonas" or something like that, did'nt you macho man? And you are the mayor of the town where our children are going to grade school. What an embarrassment.

    Jeff doesn't seem to worried about you suing him, Kelly. Why do you think that would be?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 1:47:00 PM  

  • First concerning the Riverside Sheriff/DA investigation of WE. Does anyone on this site not think that the DA is looking at every facet of WE's business and political life? Do you not think that people with an axe to grind are not flooding that office with information that would enhance his wife's divorce settlement and any business wrongdoing. For anyone to ask Ed to step in between that investigation and create his own is stupid and unrealistic. Get off that path.

    Roy, still wants to connect RM to WE because they were on the same page of ridding this town of a cancer. WE is a disease just a different strain.

    For Dougie to call for anyone to step down because of the presumtion of guilt is one of the STUPIDEST things I've ever heard. Here's a guy that was in the midst of the worse political situations this town has ever known. If he thinks WE needs to step down then he should have gone over to the Shootist and taken care of the pain he helped bring this town. Not to mention that WE's situation, while reflecting his ethics, is still personal. So AGAIN, Douie needs to keep his mouth shut about personal ethics or explain how he abandoned his wife and kids.

    Now Roy, wants to talk about Warnie's personal ethics, if he had ANY credibility he would be talking about Doug with the same vigor. But that won't ever happen now will it Roy. You are so tied at the hip to Kelly and all his many unethical friends, that Roy can only complain about the people he dislikes.

    Youre right Roy, Ed will be a great candidate, because we have seen him take one side on the issues. That of the residents of the City of Murrieta, not the development and businesses.

    I voted the same way that RM did, but I never joined their organization, so does that make me part of them? So how did WE become part of RM. Did he join them, or just vote with thm to rid our city of a cancer?

    So in closing, as much as the Roy wants to make the comparison of making what WE is accused of, which is cheating his wife out of money, to three members not acting on our City Council in the best interest of this city. It isn't close to the same thing. Personal ethics are exactly the same with all four, but to the jobs they do on the Council for this city, there is a big difference. He also looks away when politicians of his agenda time and again steal, cheat and mislead our country.....AND THEN DEFENDS THEM....but when it is someone he dislikes, then they need to quit. Roy, grow up, use your brain instead of your ideology to state your facts and don't flip flop between your agendas. Whats good for one is good for all of them or you have no credibility. Didn't you tell me, "Oh their just indicted...innocent until proven guilty when talking about your conservative (criminal) heroes in Washington. But when it comes to WE you want him tarred and feathered before he has had his day in court. Like I said, NO CREDIBILITY.

    Kelly, get some damn balls and be a man and start posting under your name.....but no, you can't say those things about WE if you do, can you? It's funny, you appear when you have an opening to slam WE, or Ed but disappear when you want to make comments to mislead everyone.....such a sly guy. But as a public servant, can't I request to have the City looking into you posting on a blog that is negative to the benefit of our community. After all you are a public servant right? Or are you just a Corporate servant?
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 2:17:00 PM  

  • It is true that KS would have to be stupid to get into a legal fight with anyone over who has the meaner mouth or keyboard - So chances are he will. There are about ten thousand things he has said or written that sound a lot worse than anything anyone else has ever said or written. I can see it now, Kelly "Developer's Boy" Seyarto vs. Jeff "Give Us An Honest City Hall" _____ (blank left for whatever Jeff's last name is). I have my own opinion about how that fight would turn out. KO for KS.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 2:32:00 PM  

  • This is the anon at 2:32 again. Another suggestion for the name of the fight: Muck Mouthed Mayor vs. The Vietnam Vet (Jeff doesn't mention it often, and he probably won't like me bringing it up here, but he's a decorated Vietnam Vet; and he deserves to be damn proud of the fact that he had the courage to make some very severe sacrifices for our country). Also I was going to give Seyarto a challenge to fight Jeff that he would find hard to resist - a triple dog dare - but here's a harder one for him - Let's make it challenge Seyarto would find really hard to meet - Stand up to a major developer some time, Mr. Mayor! Triple dog dare ya!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 2:53:00 PM  

  • 232 & 253, your boxing lingo is squirrley but your meaning is clear. Glass houses and stones would be a better way of putting it. The mayor (current mayor) once told someone they were like a black kettle calling a pot black, or something like that, and then he made another posting that he didn't intend to offend anyone; and I say, yeah sure. What's that all about?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 3:14:00 PM  

  • Jeff,
    you are a joke.
    DM is a deadbeat dad, and treated his ex like crap. Not a disputable piece of info.
    But what became of this? No matter what you believe, the guy at some point took care of business.
    There are no felonys against him, he is serving in a public capacity, if he has his RE license then he went through finger printing and background checks.
    Simple truth, we dont know they whys and whats in the mcallister househould, but he is an altar boy compared to WE.
    He was targeted for recall. So what? He believed he would prevail and he did. He committed no crime, no fraud. Innocent until proven guilty did not apply to DM's situation. And there were 2 others targeted too. Should they all have stepped down? How can you compare that to WE's situation.
    And Rholmgren is right. WE should have NEVER involved himself in the recall. It was unproffesional and made for an even worse council climate. He is getting what he deserves.
    In keeping with my fellow posters - Jeff, you "exist for opposition." You talk out of your a-hole but DO nothing. You are "tied at the hip" to EF. You are a like a baby sucking on his every word. His word has become "your creed"
    You, a decorated vet as the rumor goes, continue to degrade your country and your president. So proud of you.... fool.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 3:56:00 PM  

  • 3:56, Exactly like you said. Dougie is a deadbeat Dad. Fact known. WE is not a convicted felon!! Thats the bottom line. One is and one we can only speculate on. So your credibility and reasoning are senseless. On one hand you want to tell us how DM has no record. Well, as far as I know neither does WE.....DOES HE?

    WE was right to call for the removal of YOUR three voting block members as did almost half our community. It's the greatest thing he ever did for this community. Funny how one half is totally right (of course all the VanHaasterites) and the other is just plain stupid...right? Well VanHaaster is a disgrace to Murrieta. The first recalled unethical Mayor.

    Seems that your big problem is me doing my patriotic duty and questioning and calling OUR President on his actions. It's what I fought for, the freedom and right to do that. IT'S MY PATRIOTIC DUTY. What did you fight for.....oh, yea...you didn't!! LOL!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I believe in Ed Faunce, because everything he says is to my benefit. He has never come on here and said anything that isn't for the protection of me the homeowner. If he did, I'd come after him too.

    I have been a fool like most everyone in life but not in defending my neighbors, the homeowners and residents of this town. Thats why I get on here. I want the best for all of us. I get nothing more then that. I don't get any benefits for my stance. Not like Roy, who profits off development here, or of course our default Mayor and deadbeat Dougie. What is important to me is the fact that the homeowners and ALL the people living here start winning.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:18:00 PM  

  • Your head is about to explode Jeff Faunce... default RM spokesman.

    Non-Kelly poster - you might want to get a picture of that.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:38:00 PM  

  • Bravo Jeff. I too am a vet but you saw war and I did not. You have my respect and thanks, neither of which are the shallow and insincere kind of blowhard nonsense you get from Mayor Seyarto and his kind. The Mayor and his mass congestion housing developer goon squad of campaign supporters look like nothing next to someone who has genuinely served the public and the nation. They are serving their own interests and it makes them come unglued when people see them for what they are. Keep up the good work, please.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:46:00 PM  

  • Jeff,
    Just have to step in to correct a misstatement you continue to make. 50% of Murrieta voters did NOT vote either way in the recent recall. Only 20+% of the people even bothered to vote and 50% +/- of those voted one way or the other. It was close, I'll grant you that. But the decision was rendered by a vast minority of the population, a swing of 10%.
    By reciprocity, that means that 90% of the voting public either voted to retain the status quo or were satisfied enough with their situation to not even get off their butt to vote at all.
    So please refrain from insisting that 50% of Murrieta voted for or against something. It would be great to see 50% of Murrieta vote - for or against anything. If you want to do something more worthwhile than wearing out keyboards, get out the vote. 50% of the people are less swayed by any single factor than 20%. Get over youselves - you just aren't that important. Get out the vote - that will keep Murrieta strong. The rest is all smoke & mirrors.
    The Cheese

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 4:57:00 PM  

  • Swiss Cheese,
    I agree.....almost 50% of those voting is correct. I will not make that mistake again. I agree that part of our patriotic duty is to vote and one of the things I personally will do is walk through at least my neighborhood and surrounding areas, and NO Roy I won't knock on your door. Voting this November will be a key. I saw the first Mayor Daley in Chicago get out the vote for JFK in 1960. It helped win Kennedy the elction that year. I was young but remember watching the city aldermen driving voters. They knew how to get out the vote. Its the only way the homeowners win and thats the way we need to get the vote out. Homeowners care about the values of their homes and I think if the message gets out there that it is time we take our City back, we can.

    I don't think too much of myself Swiss Cheese...I dont have a cheesy nickname for myself like you.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 5:53:00 PM  

  • ME - I respectfully disagree. If people are honestly concerned about a situation, if it inconveniences them too much, if it causes them some personal discomfort, they will act to relieve it or eliminate it. Are you better or worse off than last election. If you're worse you do something about it, if you're better off you don't make time for that stuff - somebody else is handling it.
    Right Jeff, the property owners voices must be heard - ALL of them, not just the ones you decide are good. Homeowners deserve to be heard because other property owning groups are better represented at this time. So get out that vote. That'll tell the tale.
    SC (Swiss Cheese - I like that)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:36:00 PM  

  • To Anon 3:56, your diatribe directed towards Jeff is entirely inappropriate.

    Your statement that DM is an altar boy compared to WE has no support. You admitted that you did not know the "whys and whats in the mcallister househould." If you don't know, how can you draw a legitimate comparison. For that matter you do not know the facts regarding WE either because there has been no adjudication.

    The only substantive thing you've said is that you prefer DM to WE. But even your DM preference is speculative. You said about DM: "No matter what you believe, the guy at some point took care of business."

    No he didn't. What? You think DM got his act together and decided to make things right with his first family? Wrong, he got sued by the County DA under the deadbeat dad statute and paid up only after the legal action was begun. Copies of the settlment of that action have been circulated in Murrieta since the recall.

    You also said: "WE should have NEVER involved himself in the recall. It was unproffesional and made for an even worse council climate. He is getting what he deserves."

    You are really misinformed. Were you even around during the recall? Maybe sleeping under a rock? You didn't see the developer/Chamber hit pieces sent out maligning both WE and DO. Why wouldn't they take a position in the recall, the Trio attacked them?

    Your post has only the substance of a rant and is not worth the digital space it consumes.

    Besides, you haven't addressed the question posed by this post. Is it alright for a City Councilman to use his office as an inducement to obtain developer/consulting business?

    Edward Faunce

    PS By the way, Anon 3:56, where do you suppose DM learned that it was OK to use his public office to solicit business? Wanna bet that it was JvH?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:43:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren - If you are saying that you and Seyarto are basically nuts, everyone can agree.

    And... Interesting that you have chosen to passionately express your own hyped sexuality in the same blog in which you brought up perversion. Coincidence?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:29:00 PM  

  • Wow. That guy bleats about his private urges in a way that makes you wonder what he's all about. He's got a problem of some kind. You have to feel sorry for the people in his personal life.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:02:00 PM  

  • Roy, do you need some testosterone? Have to express you manhood over women and weaker people, kids? A little old fashion bravado? My oh my. Why don't you just use the word respect instead having to flex your muscle? Oh I forgot you have an ideology that doesn't know the word respect when talking to anyone. Only to your friends on the right and non-feminists. I guess the rest don't deserve it?

    Swiss Cheese who ever said I don't want every homeowner heard? I most definitely do. I know there are differences with homeowners, not only on the value of a specific Councilmen but also on where they are geographically located in Murrieta. Different issues all over the City that need to be heard. I can only decide one families needs and thats what I express. Hopefully many others feel the same way and their needs reflect mine. I have no idea what your needs might be. I want the best for all of us and sitting in morning and evening traffic is not a good thing for any of us. Whoa...maybe you like that so I can't speak for you.

    But really thats why this blog is alive and well to hear all opinions. It's just those that like disrespect that I argue against. The guy in an above post thinks I degrade my country by questioning the governments motives and challenging the things our President does. He is so brainwashed that he doesn't realize that is what EVERY soldier is fighting for. They aren't fighting for a politicians viewpoint, or the Presidents viewpoint or for the ideology in power. They are fighting to protect our freedom that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights and in the Constitution. These documents keep Americans free, not the President. He can chose to uphold these documents or not. Thats why everything has a check and balance because the viewpoints of Presidents change and for the good of the people they need to be kept in check. If we don't the next thing you know we will do away with court ordered warrents on wiretaps. Or we might have law enforcement or our intelligence agencies breaking into homes without warrents and leaving fliers warning us that Gays might try and brainwash our kids into turning homosexual or that Merry Christmas is under attack.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 8:17:00 PM  

  • Hey Jeff, the Swiss on the cheesy entrant is a good one. Arguements full of holes. Air head. Not all there. etc. Very appropriate.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, January 28, 2006 9:18:00 PM  

  • But Roy, I looked up the definition of Male Bravado, well actually the word bravado and here is one of the meanings: A disposition toward showy defiance or false expressions of courage. So what I take that to mean is a man puffing out is chest to try and intimidate someone lesser then him, yet not having the fortitude or COURAGE to back it up. We have seen your "male bravado" and it isn't pretty. So women's organizations bother you? Wow. I thought someone so intuned to civil liberties would stand tall along side any group....OH OH....sorry thats the other ideology not yours.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:06:00 AM  

  • Rholmgren, You and Seyarto can call people names all day long, but you can't hide from what you said once you've said it. Your use of "cojones" (which is actually spelled "cajones") is defined by the dictionary as "...a vulgar Spanish language word for testicles...". Since you were boastfully giving us a sample of your Spanish in a sentence, you know good and well (just as Seyarto did) of the blatent sexual connotations. And yes, you did mix your sexual boastings in the same blog entry that you just happened to bring up molesters. You deceiving and waffling jerk. And please do not try to get around what and who you are by blasting everyone who calls it as they see it. Your fits of name calling rage only show your level of thought and make everyone wonder about your stability. If you and your brand of local politicians want to start bringing subjects like testacles into this community blog, I would like to suggest you go somewhere else on the internet. From what I've seen on the news lately, there are a whole lot of chat rooms out there that someone like you might enjoy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:16:00 AM  

  • gottorun,
    You may defend stupidity and boastful swaggering, but what it really shows is someone trying to use power and or threats to force their opinions. Thats what swaggering does, nothing more. If you back the swaggering of people like Seyarto and Roy then youve taken a side in this blog to back the bullies.

    My point was there is no need for forceful comments, threats, beating of chests to see who is the strongest or most powerful. What we need to do is encourage respect of ALL people, except those types. You have to earn respect and it's not earned by being a bully. Whats your point gottorun?
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:43:00 AM  

  • Jeff - Way to go! These people take swings at you from all sides (mayors, anons, whatevers) but you keep coming at them, saying what needs to be said. Glad you're a Murrieta neighbor. We need you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:25:00 AM  

  • For goodness sake, can the mayor and Holmgren and everyone else please try to get along.

    / / Today in the Californian there is an unpaid PR ad for the city manager. Looks like a lovefest article all hugs and sweetness. Is that what passes for reporting these days?
    City manager Moss says the new public communications employee (at what cost?) is coming to town. Is this going to be an extension of The Murrieta Insider, or can we just call whatever comes out of it the Murrieta version of Pravda? Now why would anyone be suspicious of a paid Propaganda Czar? Information, sure. Call it controlling the conversation in town and you've got the idea.
    This just chances to be in Murrietas most important political election year ever. Guess what everyone, the development community no longer has to pay 600 thou for propaganda to keep the apartment and low rung housing machine churning out approvals. You all get to pay for it now through your taxes, right along with paying for the (how many is it?) assistant city managers in this town.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:08:00 AM  

  • 10:08, youre really right in your comments. We the homeowners will pay for this new communications employee to spread Chamber of Commerce propaganda to the unsuspecting residents who don't follow a blog like this. They will think everything is hunky dory, that our City is a very functional, wonderful, resident friendly world. But as you can see there are some very unhappy residents here in this town. There is a Mayor that secretly, so he thinks, posts on this blog all sorts of hate and knife turning. Another Councilmen that publically calls the kettle black by calling for a non-convicted Councilmen to step down for twon unity when he just went through a disgraceful recall campaign. We have a City Manager who runs the departments of our City but is connected to the Corporations that want to use our City through the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce. Call something a conflict of interest....OUR INTERESTS!
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:51:00 AM  

  • Rholly - You are someone who throws all kind of stones but you hiss like a kitten if someone takes what you say the wrong way. What's all this bravado about signing a petition? Who doesnt do that? You think it takes the invisible testosterone you boast about to do that? Guess what Rholly. Even little old ladies and 18 year old young women who have registered for the first time are signing those kind of petitions and vote for childrens protection. Get off your nonsense boasts about your body parts please. Why do you have to make such a point of being against this particular issue? We arent doubting you. Your feelings as expressed are the same as every other decent person in town, so what are you trying to prove? And be 100 percent sure please, we dont need to be impressed by your discussion of your manhood.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:10:00 PM  

  • Thank you, Murrieta T. There are times when you are like a lighthouse in a storm in this forum.

    Not to change any important subject which is being discussed, I just wanted to make a minor but interesting observation. To me at least, it is so interesting to see how so many participants have picked up each others words and phrases and styles over the many months I have been following this set of discussions (Or maybe I should say 'arguements'?). That includes people on all sides of every issue, picking up and using each others thoughts and phrases and manners of debate. If all that is in any way an indirect indicator of the way concepts and ideas are being influenced (and I think it is), it says a lot.

    That's all I had to say. Thank you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:01:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren, A couple people are obviously trying to tick you off. Everyone who has read this blog for a long time knows who you are, and that you are a good man. A little too rough around the edges sometimes in the way you treat Jeff, but still a very good man. Your reputation is secure.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:27:00 PM  

  • Anon 9:25 -
    Way to go Jeff??? Is that you again Jeff? It's so nice how you get back on and high-five yourself when you are proud of what you wrote. I picture you typing away talking to the computer.. "take that!" "see how you like that!" "oh yeah, go jeffy, you're the bomb now, go jeffy" and so on..... Until, 15 min later, you check for responses.... "hey, no one has commented on my self proclaimed brilliant well rounded commentary. Does that mean Im not brilliant? Maybe I should post as an anon and give myself some kudos. That might make somebody agree with me."
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:09:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren -
    I think Murrieta T has a crush on you. Its possible she has a crush on seyarto to so beware of competiton.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:25:00 PM  

  • Some one has posted under my name on 2:09. As anyone can see its not me but Kelly or one of his friends.
    Also, either you walk the walk and talk the talk or you don't. I have always only posted under my name.

    Murrieta T, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU SAY TWISTING???? Roy said "The emasculated male persona is being shoved down society's throat by the left and feminists." and then he said "I guess it is O.k to blast masculinity in today's society but everyone else is protected from critique by that wonderful LIB PC umbrella."

    Your a Conservative Woman and ALL conservatives hate womens groups. Because those groups believe in equality for all.

    Go play kissy face with Roy, sell your support for DEADBEAT Dougie and Bully Kelly. Without women's groups you'd be in a factory making 25% of the salary you make today. But, oh well, women shouldn't be working anyhow according to the fundametalist right, they should be staying home raising kids according to our Presidents wife. They should only work part-time. What do you do Murrieta T? LOL.

    All we get from Roy and Murrieta T is the support of DM and KS. They only comment when it is to protect those two or defend them or each other or the ideology that has infected not only the Federal government but our City government. Watch MT's posts going back. Circle the wagons, get along with KS and DM. Negative talk about WE. If Seyarto survives this November, I hope this City remembers you two.

    But I will still care and love the both of you.

    Why is it that you two HATE when someone says anything negative about your ideology? Is it that important in your life. If it is that important, you must slowly die inside as each day brings new incredible revelations about those your trust so much in. Wow!!
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:11:00 PM  

  • Roy, I don't know anyone on here that doesn't agree with Jessica's law. I don't know anyone that wants to have a pedophile living in their neighborhood.

    It's about your comment talking about MALE BRAVADO. If we have misunderstood what you meant linking it with feminists and Democrats please instruct us?

    So where do these people leaving prison go when they are released? What is your opinion, kill them?? Put them in prison forever? Are all sexual predators the same, how do you tell the difference? What about a man 19 that has consentual sex with a 17 year old and commits a sexual crime. He is labeled a sexual predator. There are 30 cases concerning this age group that brought prison time in California this year. How many of us committed this crime growing up. Should we all carry that label for life? Questioning minds want to know the conservative mind?
    Jeff
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:20:00 PM  

  • 2:25,
    Have you ever seen Murrieta T ?
    They should be so lucky

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:22:00 PM  

  • Murrieta T,
    You said "Because I dont like the hard core feminists that wish to erradicate the natural sociological and psychological, and physiological differences between men and women."

    Who on this blog has acted like a hard core feminist? All I saw was you defending Roy, who wanted to express his male bravado. Again, a male expressing his bravado is trying to "force" his swagger on others weaker then himself. If you were to go back a few months ago, you would have seen him attack verbally a woman on here.....so that was my point. I didn't twist your defense of him, nor did i twist you and he talking about feminists? He didnt mention "hard core" anything. He lumped feminists in with liberals. Seems a popular target for the two of you as a tag team. Roy doesn't seem to have mentioned "hard core". I didnt twist that.

    I really dont care if you work 80 hours a week or you have never had to work, its none of my business. The point I was trying to make is your constant, rah rah defense of Roy, another conservative, on every belittling comment he makes toward RM, anyone with any liberal take on life, anyone questioning King Kelly's questionable ethics. I did mistakenly dump Deadbeat Doug into that bag as it seemed you jumped in his defense the other day but again that was my fault.

    Again, I really had no idea you were a stay at home Mom and respect any woman/man's right to choose everything about their lives. I'm sorry you took it as an attack, it wasn't meant that way. Would you call that twisting my words, or misunderstanding my words? Its very hard on here, since we don't see expressions, or hand gestures, nor do we have a chance to ask the question again if we dont understand.

    I also feel WE should step down, not for the reasons most do however. I feel he should because he has been in, what I have seen as a very poor attitude and it appears that the attitude may be what led to his possible wrongdoing. But I don't agree he should step down because of being indicted. If any of us call for him to step down because of an indictment, then we should be the very first ones calling for ALL politicians to step down when indicted. Because calling for that means we have already convicted them, before they have had their day in court. Roy, seems to know EVERYTHING this man has done and all I did was ask him for facts. Well, we are still waiting for those facts of illegal business and personal finances outside of the indictments, from your pal. Roy just patted the anon posting (Kelly)on the back repeating that he also knew about these unethical things. But Roy was the first guy to post that we really need to wait until WE has his day on court. That changed when he smelled blood.

    KS is not only confrontational, but he is rude, arrogant and one sided. He believes like many politicians that whatever he decides is right and any who challenge him are wrong and stupid and need to shut up. No matter what you or Roy think, many of the anon posts have been the good and decent man you described, making comments as an anon to make his points, bring out dirt, without being quoted as a Mayor. I could show you many like posts that he did under his name months ago. The WE toys comment was one he went on about for weeks, showing how jealous he was. Him and I commented many times about his jealousy for WE's toys. What normal resident of this city cares, or for that matter KNOWS about another man's things and what they cost him. Most of the information on the anon post, Kelly had said months ago.

    I have no reason to question Kelly as a decent and good Father and Husband, but his role in Murrieta's politics is questionable at best. Ive stated my reasons many times for thinking that.

    I don't think that men or women who make decisions that affect my family and yours have the liberty to let us see the bad in them. If we see any bad in them they should be voted out. Arrogant people should not be allowed to control us for they think they are better then the rest of us.

    Two men have my respect so far, one is Gibbs and the other is Mr Faunce. When I respect someone I will do whatever, including money, resources that I can get, and my personal efforts at backing them and getting them into office. Too bad I wasn't involved in the recall campaign except to vote. This November will be different. Getting them elected to office protects our investments, so spending some money to protect ourselves is always worthwhile. But it isn't always about the cash we invest in politiicians. It's about getting the word out and talking to the people, even if it's door to door. What's the cost to print out 35,000 flyers and having people walk door to door, ringing doorbells, talking to our neighbors and enlightening them. Maybe this year, it's not about the ugly signs that litter our street corners, but about explaining to the renters and homeowners of Murrieta the real truths.

    Kelly, I truly hope your a good fireman. Because it's what you are going to do full time after November. We will get good, respectful men to fill these voids. We need, not just want, but need to turn the face of Murrieta around. Which one of us doesnt want a honest, hardworking and reliable City Council? It's up to us, if we don't it will be Kelly and Company and they will steam roll everything with the Development community driving.

    The return of Vanhaaster, which I have talked about for the last 6 months is upon us. He wants to return. The plan is for his return. We fight it or we lose.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:08:00 PM  

  • From someone who knows, Murrieta T is beautiful, inside and out.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:00:00 PM  

  • 9:08, you said you will get men to fill these voids. I'm sure you would agree that Nancy Knight could be a leading contender to win a council seat.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:08:00 PM  

  • 11:08, I think Nancy is running for another political position.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, January 30, 2006 5:16:00 AM  

  • 11:09 & 5:16 some of us are going to ask Nancy to run for Council again. She would be at the front of the pack the minute she announced.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, January 30, 2006 9:28:00 AM  

  • A while ago JvH, either in the Press Enterprise or The Californian, said he wasn’t going to run for the Murrieta City Council again.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, January 30, 2006 9:35:00 AM  

  • First of all my talking about Roy and the feminists was about him speaking of male bravado verus feminists and liberals. That was it. You are the one that clarified that YOU not he meant "hard core", whatever that is.

    OK.....kissy face meant as I guess I am older then all you, snuggling up to whatever the other one says. Has nothing to do with anything in a man/woman context. I use the same expression at work to two men. It means nothings, and everyone knows here that I have no contentions about or against women. Hell, my wife is easily ten times the person I ever hope to be.

    I ask you the same question in my last post, I knew what you meant but was asking if you were twisting my words to prove a point.

    But, look back at almost all of your posts with Roy and see the STYLE of posts. It is pretty rah rah...are those a better term?

    But you did defend Roy over his comment about feminists, did you not? And if there has been no "hard core" feminist talk, why would you defend him. Again I only posted after his first comment which clearly lumped feminists in with liberals. I won;t put words in your mouth, but in defending myself, do you think all feminists are liberals? I didn't say "hard core" (I love those words) but just your everyday women for equality.

    I'm glad you do your own thinking we need to see more of it. It's sometimes enlightening whether I agree or not, it at least brings out a thought.

    Why do I think JVH will run again. Just watch. Would anyone like to place a small gentlemens wager? Come on Roy, you spoke up, lets back up our words here....Im kidding I dont want your money.

    You know we have been degressing here. I haven't heard from Ed on the meeting at his home. Ed, How did it go?? Also, Murrieta T, is your decision final about running for office. You could run against Ostling and even though I don't agree with you all the time, I'd finacially back you and do what I could. The one thing I do know about you is you would do the best for Murrieta.

    I went to Big Bear Lake today, we have a home there and the weather was outstanding, the lake is full again....for those of you looking for positive thoughts.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, January 30, 2006 4:22:00 PM  

  • Im still really confused by your definition of feminist, it's far different then mine. My wife is a feminist but by no means is she liberal, or hard core. She hasn't even burned her bras...damn. To me a feminist is someone who focuses on women's right. A very hard core feminist, man hater, doesn't relate to liberals, nor do they relate to anyone I've ever known. So for Roy to bring them up on a blog that has never heard a single comment directed that way, I could only envision Roy's definition of feminist as a woman that works within the Democratic party framework. Thus my asking the question I did about a man using his bravado to fight a woman like this doesn't fit any definition of Hard Core.

    OK....yes, Gibbs will see my support. So far he has fullfilled everything our City needs. I believe that he would be a model Councilmen to judge candidates by.

    Again, I hope I'm wrong that JVH will run. It would really make our City look weak and stupid if he was to be elected back. However, I think the development community needs him back in and will work to get him there. If not, they will push other Seyarto like employees of the city, to get that 3 to 2, or 4 to 1 advantage. If that happens Gibbs will either have to fall in line, or stand against the development steam roller.

    What is really key to all of us, is getting this information out to the voters. If we sit back, if we don't step up, if we lose focus, then we will have no voice, nothing to fight issues that are important to the homeowners. I ask anyone on here when the last time our default Mayor stood up and defended the homeowners of this town. They are the property taxpayers. They are the key to the city. Yes, I know commercial interests pay taxes, but they aren't given a vote. It's up to us to keep this town or give it away.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, January 30, 2006 6:11:00 PM  

  • Jeff asked: " I haven't heard from Ed on the meeting at his home. Ed, How did it go??"

    First, I've been getting ready for an administrative trial tommorrow morning in Ventura, so, although I've been watching the discussion, I haven't jumped in.

    Secondly, the post, to which all these comments are attached, appears to be essentially non-controverted. That is, the bloggers seem to accept the proposition that McAllister should not be using his Council Office to attract business contacts. That's what I thought the consensus would be.

    The meeting at my home last wednesday evening was well attended and there was a good energy level. I didn't take a count, but there was more than fifty and less than a hundred present.

    Many, many people who worked on the recall showed up. I noticed that the group was way ahead of the last time we began. The feeling was one of we've been through the recall wars together, we trust each other and, best of all, we like each other.

    Rescue Murrieta began collecting membership dues, $25 per person or $40 for a family. We need to collect at least a sizable warchest and when people recall the $600K spent to buy our council, there should be no trouble forming a big $99 club.

    Oh yeah, the $99 club are those who want to support a residents' movement to find and endorse candidates, but who don't want to go through the reporting hassle. Once $100 is given in a reporting year, then the donor must report, name, occupation etc.

    No formal actions were taken by the group except that we committed to giving assistance to our endorsed candidates by precinct workers.

    Council man Rick Gibbs had unanimous support in his re-election bid. He will clearly head any RM ticket.

    Now, the candidates themselves will probably not want to run on a slate, but the residents in RM are determined not to allow the vote to be split so that the developer/Chamber candidates slip in without a majority of the voters. So, we intend to use some selection process by which we will determine the three best candidates from the residents' perspective and we will ask the voters to support those three.

    Our City Clerk, Kay Vinson, told me that nomination for council office will happen during a three-week period in July. We are starting our organization now to be ready for the summer and fall campaign.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, January 30, 2006 7:36:00 PM  

  • I think some of these people need to get some balls and quit posting as "anonymous". Are you really THAT afraid of your own opinion? How pathetic...

    By Blogger Jeremy Ogul, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 6:02:00 AM  

  • You people who keep boasting about your testosterone-related male macho natures and your male body parts (yes, Murr T - and you dont have to mention again that you are female - male body parts) by talking about your "balls" or "cajones" or "kahonas" or whatever the heck you want to call them. And also you people who are the apologists of these kind of people like Murr T all need to read the full article in today's press enterprise about the guy whose testosterone and twisted brain combined to cause hell for a Canyon Lake woman, her child, and a lot of people around them. Yes, this is male machoistic "balls" nature being acted out in just one of its many manifestations. Of course Rholmgren and his apologists are going to act all indignant about this comparison, but it is real.
    The main fact to remember is that real moral strength and the power of a person's dignity have absolutely nothing to do with so called "balls" or "cajones" or whatever in the world else you want to say to refer to what is very distinctly nothing other than a component of a sex part, a male sex part, the testicles. This is not a feminist writing, this is someone who can see through the sham of denial that people like Rholmgren use to pump up their own self image. Your kind, and your apologists, are a humiliation. You can say you're speaking in metaphores, but they are as sexist as obscure references to race are racist. Go ahead now, hide behind all the words you want to hide behind in defense of yourselves. Take whatever kind of silly pride or bravado you feel in sticking your names at the end of your writing if that makes you feel tough.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:59:00 AM  

  • 7:59, I totally agree with you and that was my point. No person offering up his or her opinions need to post them by trying to overide, or force that opinion on others. It's just an opinion. Thats the same reason that we get name calling in this blog. It comes from the need to belittle someone else, into making that person's opinion appear to be less worthy. Roy hasn't done it to me lately, he's been much better but I still feel his NEED to overpower others opinions with his. I tried hard to explain it.

    Seyarto, if you read back far enough, has that same need. That's why I reference arrogance when referring to him. His gruffness changed some, lighter then before, when he began posting again during Enochs arrest but then the real side of him can be seen when he posts as a anon, where his comments won't make the PE or the Californian. At the same time he does that, he gets his talking points out in public, so his defenders can start agreeing. To reference other illegal activities and questions concerning Enochs toys was all Seyarto was about months ago. It rang in his posts. So, instead he just posts as anon hoping others will agree....just like his friend Roy does. When Murrieta T, calls him a good and decent man, she was not part of those discussions months ago, and doesn't see the snake he is, lying in hiding, waiting to strike. Thats the politics of KS as I see them.

    You know Kelly please be part of the election debates. I have printed all your comments out and need you to address your reasonings in a public forum. I will be there in the front row asking.....why should we vote for a man who takes his vote and would cast it wastefully to make another Councilmen look bad. I have the quote. When asked why he didn't raise the bar on a developer, his quote was he was worried the developer was having to pay more. We all saw the unethical bait and switch debacle when we switched Mayors. Instead of instantly accepting, as he did, a good Councilman would have stood up and asked WHY would any Councilman sherk his elected responsibility. It has to stand as one of the real disgraces we have seen in Murrieta politics. That move by McAlister and Seyarto brought shame to this city. It wasn't family or personal ethics. It was Murrieta City ethics at stake and they abused those ethics. So anyone asking me to prove KS or DM's ethics need to look at that use of rules as a violation of public trust.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:09:00 AM  

  • 1. Would it have made you feel better if I had said guts? Okay... I retract my previous statement and substitute this: "I think some of these people need to get the guts to quit posting as "anonymous". Are you really THAT afraid of your own opinion? How pathetic..."

    2. No, posting my name does not make me feel tough. That wasn't the point of my statement. In my view, posting with a signature indicates that you are sure enough of your own opinion to attach your name -- a very valuable thing -- to it. Honestly, if you knew me in real life (as opposed to this make-believe internet world), you definitely wouldn't think of me as a masochistic sexist disrespectful sex-crazed wife-beating wife-beater-wearing beer-drinking football-loving guy.

    3. 7:59, I don't know what you mean by "you people", but I'd rather you not group me with whoever else is on this forum that you don't like. The first time I was here was last night... How could I "keep posting" about "male macho nature"? It's this need in society, to categorize and generalize, that is the root of so many historical problems. I never asked to be labeled. So please don't.

    4. I would appreciate some explanation behind the logic that me saying what I said signifies a need to force my opinions on others...

    5. I understand that because of certain reputations and repercussions and reprisals and other R-words, some people aren't comfortable posting their opinions. But if you're sure of what you're saying... if you believe in what you're saying... if it really is 100% factual... why hide? What are you hiding from??? John Peter Zenger. Prerevolutionary newspaper editor. The truth cannot be defamatory. Check it.

    Perhaps some of the statements weren't directed to me. In that case, please disregard my response(s).

    By Blogger Jeremy Ogul, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:57:00 AM  

  • Jeremy,
    Are you a Murrieta resident and at 16 are you interested in the polictics of it?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:31:00 PM  

  • Very true gottorun. Nasty speeches did cost RM credibility and support from residents who only heard the bitter speeches as the council meetings.
    It distracts from the cause, and the cause is what is important. Thank you for pointing that out to Edward and RM.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:09:00 PM  

  • 7:59 -
    You are distasteful. What is your purpose in bringing up that kind of filth? This must be the kind of talk gottorun is referring to.
    Murrieta T - You did NOT need to respond to that garbage.
    Jeff, you totally agree?? Buddy, you go toe to toe with Seyarto and butt heads with the best of them. You are a solider who never lets anyone demean your family. You are a man that states his opinion firmly and stands by it. You are a guy with "guts". You think it is okay to compare a man like yourself to a man like 7:59 mentions. Stand tall man, dont let that crap scare you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:16:00 PM  

  • Murrieta T, Here are the posts everyone is talking about.

    1:47 said "Let's see who gets the last big belly laugh in the end," you wrote in your macho guy (ADDRESSING SEYARTO) style. And you boasted somewhere about who has the bigger "kahonas" or something like that, did'nt you macho man? And you are the mayor of the town where our children are going to grade school. What an embarrassment."
    My note: Kelly said something to this effect, I didnt go back and trace it.

    Roy responed on 1/28 6:56 "1:47 the word is "Cajones" Tu necessita aprender espanol amigo o amigia. More men need to express their masculine side. (THE ONLY IMPLICATION HERE IS A MANS BALLS, OR POWER TO MASCULINITY). The emasculated male persona is being shoved down society's throat by the left and feminists. 1:47 WHY DO YOU FEEL THREATENED BY A LITTLE OLD FASHIONED MALE BRAVADO?"

    Murrieta T, Did you not read this response??

    Does that response not mean that men have to be men and use their bravado...beating of chests in essense?? Again, he didn't mention hard core feminists and I dont think everyone on the left is hard core anything.

    So twisting of words would be someone saying his meaning meant "hard core" feminists. Isn't that right?

    My interrputation would be that Roy was stating that more men needed to be tough and use their God given strength and pride because he feels too many people including feminists on the left wanted an equal footing in arguments. Its the same logic he used months ago with me when calling me a traitor and a coward. Had I used my bravado at the time, Roy's feet would be sticking out of the gutter. His reasoning at the time was I should just get over it if I wanted to indulge people in political argument. I don't believe you were part of that discussion at the time.

    So thats where the mentioning of balls and or the relation to cajones comes from. Roy compared them to men expressing their masculine side or their power. You know....the OLD FASHION MALE BRAVADO. Wouldn't everyone assume that he wants to protect his masculinity by being tough? I would think so. I don't think anyone is twisting words. Just disecting his statement.

    Poster 7:29 evidently took Roy's puffing up his chest against a feminist....again not a hard core feminist, but someone like my wife, who wants equality, not as a sexual reference to being dominant. And reading back you could describe his statement as hyping his sexuality or masculinity....NO??? I think this person then linked this male "power" or "bravado" to the same sickness and drive that men have when they rape and sexually abuse women and children. It of course isn't sexual to them but a need to dominate and have power over someone they can....a weaker woman or child. I don't believe Roy meant anything sexual, but I do think he meant to use a man's power over a woman, not over other men as feminists were brought in. Wouldn't you think????

    Men don't need to use bravado, or masculinity when dealing with anyone. They need to use respect which was my point all along. But when talking about Male power, Roy brought out the worse fears in people, especially on the female side.

    On 8:16 1/29 another poster said "Rholmgren, You and Seyarto can call people names all day long, but you can't hide from what you said once you've said it. Your use of "cojones" (which is actually spelled "cajones") is defined by the dictionary as "...a vulgar Spanish language word for testicles...". Since you were boastfully giving us a sample of your Spanish in a sentence, you know good and well (just as Seyarto did) of the blatent sexual connotations. And yes, you did mix your sexual boastings in the same blog entry that you just happened to bring up molesters. You deceiving and waffling jerk. And please do not try to get around what and who you are by blasting everyone who calls it as they see it. Your fits of name calling rage only show your level of thought and make everyone wonder about your stability. If you and your brand of local politicians want to start bringing subjects like testacles into this community blog, I would like to suggest you go somewhere else on the internet. From what I've seen on the news lately, there are a whole lot of chat rooms out there that someone like you might enjoy."

    My note: there was a definte anger here and I don't have the spanish reference so I don't know where that came from but this poster did.

    Roy on 1/29 11:24 said this " the meaning that you pulled out of my post came from your own imagination. I guess it is O.K for people of other persuasions to "huff and puff" but when a male does it is somehow wrong".

    So he admitted his bravado is to huff and puff or as I said, puff out his chest. Animals do it to scare off other animals out of feear.

    The next post said this "You are someone who throws all kind of stones but you hiss like a kitten if someone takes what you say the wrong way", speaking to Roy.

    Murrieta T, you then defended Roy by saying this "This spin here is unreal. Rholmgren never talked about "his manhood" (BUT YOU ARE WRONG, HE DID 3 TIMES) or his "body parts" He corrected spelling of an earlier poster who talked about how KS brought up "kahones" and for the later poster who blasted Rholmgren for his spelling "cojones", look back.... he wrote "cajones."

    Now he was NOT just correcting spelling or pronunciation. He was directly relating cajones to male masculinity as I showed above.

    I believe sometimes you need to read more and not defend someone, just to defend. Read the references in what people say, look at historial rhetoric and you will see your mistaken. You'll see on this, you are the twister.

    Now I know you will come back and say you don't want to talk about this, its gone on long enough, however, when a person is taking pot shots about twisting things, they had better be a big enough person to understand that they lose credibility by not accepting fault and answering duly.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:29:00 PM  

  • 2:16, I answered the best I know how. I know Roy isn't making sexual comments, its clear he is not that way. It is clear that Roy likes force and power. It is clear to me he calls names for that purpose and he did use the term to show intimidation over another person, be it a man or woman but he went on to attack feminists, not male body builders. Im sorry but I dont like his way of treating people stating opinions.

    I say NO to gottorun. We can't OK unethical behavior to appease a group of people (The colony). DM has done some pretty unethical things including passing on being Mayor. He failed all of us including the Colony.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:37:00 PM  

  • Jeff, 2:09 here,
    You spin again. gottorun never said he would accept unethical behavior. What he said was we should examine his record when DM is up for reelection. Murrieta T is right, you gotto read what the poster says, not apply your twisting implications

    Murr t - NEGATIVE implication

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:11:00 PM  

  • Murrieta T, you said "I clearly stated the kind of feminist groups I was opposed to and you still decided to twist things to say that I am a conservative woman and all conservative women hate womens groups. Again I quote you "Because I dont like the hard core feminists that wish to erradicate the natural sociological and psychological, and physiological differences between men and women."

    You pulled a difference between hard core and whatever kind...i guess normal. Now you say "In my world, the term "feminist" has a negative connotation. What world is that??? Now the name feminist is negative?? But when I read the dictionary version it says "feminist

    adj : of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women"
    So I think that is a positive word.....although Im not conservative. I believe women are not only my equal but in many cases my better.

    So my question to you is it your world being your ideological world?

    You lost total credibility in not relating Roy's cahones translation to male masculinity because several posts of his related to that and to male dominence.

    Your world is easily clear to see. I personally would hate to be wrapped into my ideology where I saw nothing the way it actually is but only how it is told to me. I wont argue with you anymore because you have already made decisions by your labeling of who is good and who is negative...according to their label. Not if they are right or wrong. Roy and you should keep high fiving, because you are in the same world.

    4:11, gottorun is accepting unethical behavior when he allows it. Being unethical is not only in breaking the law, but taking things to extremes....and that comes from the State ethics committee. What Ed has done is expose it, we need to let the community knowthe ones that don't read this blog or hear about it.
    I agree we should need to focus on replacements for Ostling, Seyarto and possibly Enochs.

    Bottom line is the more accepting we are the easier it will be to slip a candidate that leans both ways. We can't be wishy washy. Or we will find ourselves back where we were before the recall.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:44:00 PM  

  • gottorun,
    I agree with you 100% and hope RM heeds your advise! How dumb of Jeff to suggest you endorse unethical behavior. I clearly understood your message, deal with DM at the appropriate time, do not annoy voters in the meantime, focus on the November election! I have parents in the colony, and it would benefit anybody that wants to run for council to get their support. Many residents did not like RM,I know this as a fact. Your advise was very good. The colony represents a huge voting bloc, in addition, many seniors have families that live outside the colony, but are also registered voters in Murrieta.
    I have read the blog but not participated, so much is garbage. A lot of bloggers go on and on and like to hear themselves talk, especially this Jeff guy. He takes everything out of context and runs with it. Why do people bother and argue with him?
    Finally, I will agree with Murrieta T: When I hear the word feminist, I see before me a tough, self centered women whose priority is competing with men and pursuing womens rights, always worried they get the short end of the stick. To me, that is a negative.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:24:00 PM  

  • The term is only negative as far as I have ever seen when addressed by conservatives. I didn't think you called a specific feminist negative, I knew you meant the term? I quoted what Webster said about it. Isn't it in there that the term is defined. Maybe you know a different definition then the one most people few it as. Conservatives like Roy even tie it directly to being liberal....or did I twist that too. LOL
    Your right, it isn't difficult to understand Roy's meanings when he tries to talk male dominence. EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE HE IS AND HAS COME FROM.

    Anyone who reads ANY post, not just mine or yours or Roy's gains a perception from it. From your post I gain that the word feminist is a negative expression to you, even if you twist the LEVEL of being one.

    Masculinity and bravado when used correctly can be good things, but when there used to empower the person talking over what they view as less then them, it is no more then arrogance. Thats my perception OF how Roy uses terms. Just like he used traitor, coward and other deragatory terms. But maybe you can defend those terms, because he was misquoted, his words twisted? Oh maybe it was Benedict Arnold Day.....LOL.

    It doesn't seem to me, again my perception, that either you or Roy think beyond your political inclinations. Thats why it's so easy to defend his viewpoints on everything, when so many think the opposite. Ask most on here what their perception is of Roy?

    Do you know political leaders that lead our country? Probably not, yet your political inclinations direct you one way or another, defending those that have the same ideology and hating those that stand against it without knowing them and what they are capable of. So your worlds as your comments link are almost the same as regards your perceptions.

    To call a feminist a negative term is like me calling a liberal a negative term. Oh you think that's negative too, he asked politely?

    So if you wanted to vote on negative terms, where would Democrat, liberal, unions, progressive, gay, evolution, LOL....happy holidays fare with you. Are these negative also???? You don't have to answer. I already have a perception. I also quoted (EVERYTHING) so there would be no twisting of facts said. But, how wrong I am. When you say the word feminist means something negative it actually meant the term has a negative connotation not the word. Very twisting and confusing. But maybe I could clear it up for both of us by quoting what Rush Limbaugh thinks of the word, or term. Oh why bother...we already know. The definition is not negative, just the term...OK
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:48:00 PM  

  • See what I mean....Roy's last post is typical.....and you want to defend him? LOL.....please Roy one or two more posts tonight...I love to hear what a sweet, considerate young man you are. Does it ever get tiring thinking you are better then others, be it beliefs or their feelings or the way they look. Murrieta T.....the term is arrogance....spelled ROY and Kelly.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:55:00 PM  

  • and jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:16:00 PM  

  • Murrieta T, I am glad you give up trying to make your point to Jeff. Both he and Ed Faunce wear you out with their endless debates, everything is about winning the argument. Both of them will not acknowledge anyone elses points, they have to be right and they will wear you out trying to prove over and over that they are right. I did get a laugh when Jeff referred to you as playing "kissy face" with Roy in an earlier entry, it is funny how oblivious he is to his "kissy face" with Ed Faunce! But who cares, anyway!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:56:00 PM  

  • To Gottorun, 1:53, thanks for your encouragement and advice. RM does not wish to offend Murrietans who support our agenda of removing, or at least minimizing, special interest control of our City Council.

    Incidentally, this post I wrote about DM was not meant to be an "attack" on him, but rather to show that the developers tenacles can ensnare our City Council out-of-sight.

    We must keep this clearly in mind when vetting candidates to support in the upcoming election.

    Edward Faunce

    PS to Anon 8:56, yes Kelly we know you don't care, that's why you mentioned it!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:20:00 PM  

  • Yes, I'm sixteen, and yes, I'm a Murrieta resident... am I interested in the politics of it? Sure... I love that local politics is more like a game normal people can play, whereas national politics... you know... Anyway, should I not be?

    Uhh, hey Ed...
    Did you know if you set your site up with a sitemeter.com account, you'd be able to track the IP addresses of anyone who posts on your blog? You can't get names, but every person has a unique IP address, so you would definitely know who's who... but, I dunno... maybe that would spoil the fun.

    Another suggestion: Instead of hosting these big discussions on your blog, you should set up an online forum... I'm sure everyone's seen what I'm thinking of... Like a message board? Things would be easier to sift through, search, and identify.

    I was at one of the council meetings before the recall (I'm not sure exactly which one) and I saw Edward Faunce there... and I saw some of you too! I remember.
    Just thought I'd let you know...

    Yours truly.

    By Blogger Jeremy Ogul, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:09:00 PM  

  • Oh and also, Ed...

    I understand where your commentary is coming from, BUT,
    can you provide us with any data (i.e.- votes on Golden Real Estate and Investments projects) that would lead us to believe McAllister is actually abusing his post?

    I think we need to define the key difference between having the potential to abuse and actually abusing...

    Yours truly,

    By Blogger Jeremy Ogul, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:30:00 PM  

  • Hi Jeremy, this blog belongs to Mr. Joe Kunkle so suggestions about changing the format should be addressed to him. Mr. Kunkle has allowed me to post some commentaries, as a guest.

    I do not have any data regarding voting on GRE projects. The issue of potential conflict of interest arises not only because of actual votes on GRE projects, but in favoring (voting to approve) any developers' projects in Murrieta in order to curry favor with the development community.

    From a business perspective, I would imagine that every time a Murrieta project comes up for a vote, DM must consider the identity of the developer as part of his calculus in deciding how to vote. This is the conflict, to which I referred, because it subordinates the interest of City residents to the business needs of GRE.

    I think your interest in local politics is fantastic. My wife said, after seeing your picture, "He's really cute."

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 10:40:00 PM  

  • To all: It occurred to me that many readers might wonder how I saw a picture of Jeremy.

    If you click on the "Post a comment" you will be able to scroll up to one of Jeremy's posts to which he has attached a picture.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:05:00 PM  

  • Murrieta T, my point, which is clearly flying over and past you is that I was not twisting words. I tried to show you why I believed and said what I said. Like Ive said many many times, I am not always right. Its just my side. I understand your side and encourage it. But don't want my side to be belittled as to twisting of words. I tried to show how easy anyones perception could be twisted.

    You were asking for answers on the word feminist, clearly to disprove my point. I asked you about other words as to their negativity. I again was proving my point.

    Please don't be insulted, your comments are always listened to and respected by everyone. I too am just protecting my perceptions as facts as I know them and not the twisting of them as you assumed.

    As for being worthy of an opinion, I as others have encouraged you to represent me on the Council. I believe you are worthy to protect me, my taxes and my future, I think that is endorsement enough to show you how I view your opinions. Thats why I felt it right that I explain to you that my PERCEPTION wasnt a twisting of words.

    Roy....I am not labeled anything as to my political intentions and thoughts. Why is it so important to be labeled anything. All it does is hamstring a person, youre then stuck defending things you may not totally find reasonable. I believe in things that filter from all ideologies. If someone on here was a die hard liberal, and called others names for not being that way I would challenge his/her agendas too, the way I do You and MT. My thoughts and feelings come from my life experiences and my familes needs and wants, not because someone wrote up rules and regulations for me to abide by.

    Kelly, I believe that a person like Ed would be a great leader and work his backside off for this town, thats why I respect what he says. Everything he has said, I believe is for the good of me, not the good of outside interests, or for his own profit. If that changed I'd challenge him also.
    I'm waiting for your next ambush post under your own name. Or does that only happen when you can get on here, having inside information to slam someone you dont like. We miss your patience and caring respectful thoughts.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:40:00 AM  

  • MT: I have re-read Rholmgren's posts going back a long way. Without getting into the gross details, in many cases nonvulgar references he has made are sometimes just one step removed in a literal sense from what he actually means. He is coarse but carefully sneaky with his words at the same time. To say someone else is twisting his words, when in reality they are calling him on what he is really saying, is just not the right thing to do. Some of Jeff's politics are not my politics, but he's got plenty of insight into what Rholmgren is really all about after all these months.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:12:00 AM  

  • I am 1112 with one more thing: I want to add that all this is just my opinion. I don't know Rholmgren, and for a long time I thought he was a straight forward kind of person. I just don't think so any more.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:21:00 AM  

  • MT, everyone should sign any law that protects the well being of every woman and child EVERYWHERE. It Roy asked me to stand on a corner and drag people out of cars to sign I would. Roy meant nothing sexual between male bravado and the terrible perversion of child abuse.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:58:00 PM  

  • Hi. I read that post about signing a petition and the posts that followed. No one at any time disagreed with the petition signing, and no one made it sound like signing it was deviance. What nonsense. Talk about twisting people's words. I don't know who any of these people think they are fooling, but I don't think there is an objective person among them. Does anyone know of a Murrieta blog that is better than this one? If they do I hope they will fill me in and then I can say I found some good in this blog.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:02:00 PM  

  • The north county times (californian newspaper) has an on going blog section, and the murrieta insider online version has a section for topic posts.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:09:00 PM  

  • There is also a good chance the new city communication website will have a city blog when it debuts or soon after.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:36:00 PM  

  • Kelly, you are up to your old tricks again aren't you, you sly dog. Get people to start reading the Murrieta Insider where the top two guys are the default Mayor and his sidekick deadbeat Doug. Kelly youre such a smart guy. Everyone that lives on my street comments to me and says they know these posts come from your typewriter. Well, just think as the weather gets warmer and I start walking the dogs at night all the good things that will be said about you. The blog YOU should be posting on his the Fireman's Gazette. Thats where you'll be spending your nights in a few months, writing how to prevent fires. By the way that would be a wonderful column for you to author on the city communication web site.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:03:00 PM  

  • 2:02 - MT would not twist but anyone can make an honest mistake. There is a lesson in this for everyone. It is easy to assume and to be honest and still misread and to spin posts in directions they were never intended to go and I see that happening a lot on this website.

    Jeff - The Insider post did not sound like KS. He has never been known to recommend the Californian. I think he is also not going to promote any unsupervised free speech kind of blog on a city website, and any censored or identity monitored blog would not get much public input.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:13:00 PM  

  • MT, it's the male power, bravado whatever you want to call it thing that Roy inserted in that is bugging these people. I tried to explain before. Child abuse and rape and all these diviant crimes are not sexual to the criminal. It's all about male power. Thats the connection they are trying to make and Roy didn't mean anything by it.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:51:00 PM  

  • Roy, youre right the Democratic party is just as lame. They should have a plan, as they have an opening here. But they have failed. You and I won't see eye to eye on this so I really don't want to argue about it. Read Murtha's letter today to the President and explain to me what are the answers. Explain to me about breaking the 4th amendment. I don't care if a Nuclear Bomb is 6 hours away, you don't break the law. Next week the whistle blower is coming out with a list of all the domestic calls that were tapped. Calls that had nothing to do with terrorism. Thats when the roof will be blown off this thing. Calls between normal citizens, here in the states, Democratic interest groups including two Senators. We shall see.

    And yes it will be a long time coming when I a veteran who served two terms in Nam, 5-1/2 years in country will forget that I was caled a coward and traitor for using my freedom of speech, without an apology.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:59:00 PM  

  • Jeff and anyone else who happened to read Jeff's 5:59 post:

    You (Jeff) said, "I don't care if a Nuclear Bomb is 6 hours away, you don't break the law."

    So let's say some CIA wacko who could stop that bomb from going off decides to follow your advice (that's what makes him a wacko, following your advice), and the proper channels to follow to be sure a law is not broken happen to take at least 7 hours (the result of 200-plus years of US legal bureaucracy). End result: Everything is great. Civil liberties intact. City turned to vapor. Oops.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:27:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren, you well meaning turkey. See how messy things get when you slice off some of your macho baloney and lay it on the blog? Even the usually level headed participants are starting to sound like they are bogged down in the smelly stew you stirred up. Man, why don't you just grab a brewski and a hot dog and yell at the tv when the game is on. Leave us bloggers alone so we can argue about important things, like Warnie Enochs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:40:00 PM  

  • 6:27, the law that is in place now, a thing called checks and balances, allows the government to wiretap someone as long as they get a warrant within 72 hours. So it could be done legally. I believe in 20 years, out of thousands and thousands of cases less then one hundred had been turned down....hear that less the one hundred couldn't be used in court, didn't mean they didn't do it!! But this President has decided thats not good enough, he can't go back to a court within 72 hours to do it legally. He has to violate the law. Now how many terrorists have been arrested, you know they would be announcing it on loudspeakers if they did? So, the violations are in the tens of thousands of this warrentless abuse of our civil liberties. All anyone is asking is go back 72 hours later.....3 DAYS LATER AND GET A WARRANT!!! So if we put our heads together and think this out, since this is a check and balance on the Executive branch, and of course they don't want to say who has been wiretapped, what do you think is being hidden here? Lets think, who is the Bush White House listening to? Why did the White House beg the NYT to not print the story? LOL......you have 72 hours to ask for a warrent when less then 1% have been rejected in 20 years....LOL. Tell me who is he spying on?? Two Democratic Senators. Do you think those damn liberals are conspiring with Osama to terrorize Christmas....I think it was Osama's idea to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

    But it's really not funny is it. There are no checks and balances with this White House. They just say have confidence in us? Do we trust them....Iraq....Katrina....

    So 6:27, you saw what happened when a major city was hit in essence by a bomb...a natural disaster. Oops. You'd think that Bush would have set up the White House in New Orleans and directed this major disaster even today...but no....where is he....how much did he talk about New Orleans last night? One sentence?

    So the city you talked about turning into vapor.....we have a historical reference....it's in Louisiana. Thats how much Bush cares about a city turning to vapor....But go off and worry that they are coming....scare everyone that if we fight them there, they wont come here. LOL.

    Now if you can spin that, go ahead, but the fear should be of our Presidents ability to run our country, not the insurgents flying here.

    Bin Laden is still running free, directing video tapes, (maybe he could be a correspondent for Fox News) but......look we started a civil war and now we don't have a clue how to fix it. Wait, create a democracy like Palestine and Lebonan...right...then it will fix itself...right? But who did they vote into power in Iraq?? More religious radicals who aliegn themselves with Iran, who the President says is Evil.

    So, I don't know 6:27, if GW doesn't have 72 hours to get a warrant, it must be he's spying on you and me....do you know for sure??? Oh....well, maybe he will tell you when he bursts into your home in the name of finding Al Queda members.

    MT....I just leaving work and it's after 8PM, I can see tomorrow the news sight I saw it on and give you the link.

    Roy, if a Democratic Preident had done this you and Rush and Sean would be screaming your brains out....heck, they did that when Clinton got a haircut.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:37:00 PM  

  • Roy, checks and balances I guess would be a Democratic talking point seeing that they need to be in place right now with the way Bush and Company are violating our trusts and civil liberties.

    But one thing you need to do is call Rush and tell him that the NSA....as copied and pasted from their web site was NOT started by Bill Clinton (President Truman and the National Security Council issued a revised version of the National Security Council Intelligence Directive (NSCID) No. 9 on 24 October 1952, which resulted in the formation of NSA on 4 November 1952).

    Also ask Rush to send you the information he has on any other President other then Nixon who violated the Constitution and spied on American citizens without a search warrant? Did you know since 2000 the NSA cases have increased 250 percent? Again according to their web site. Clinton did everything didn't he. I heard he actually was in Florida to pull the plug on Terri Schaivo. It's all you have to talk about, a President who was 6 years ago.

    What Republican unethical act do you not defend??

    No Roy, the checks and balances that are set in place to keep the Nixons and Clintons and Bushs from running wild are the watchdog systems, not a lonely old Democrat. But to conservatives they mean nothing. Do you want to talk about the Congressional Ethics committee??? How they handled the DeLay abuses before he was indicted.

    Who cares about civil liberties? But wait....hold on world.......what really matters is Gay marriage and saying Merry Christmas. LOL.

    No what matters Roy are our servicemen dying (5 more last night) in Iraq for no reason. (You care about children, I realize they are not American children, but over 15,000 have died in Iraq since 2003) What matters are the survivors and displaced families of Katrina. What matters are the poor and disadvantaged ( you know the ones that Our God commanded us to put first) or did he say make Democracies out of every country. I don't remember? When death and killing are OK but an ideology rises when a man in love wants to love another man. When people worry about what phrase is said at Christmas, when lobbyists can control our government and our representatives, when a President can let a whole city flounder and give little personal support. We are in big trouble. But now what's really important is making sure the gay couple down the street doesn't have marital legal rights...LOL. Oh my God.

    Roy, you never have to explain anything to me except why are there so many ethics issues today within the Federal and local governments??? Misusing checks and balances......yes because your boy got caught red handed and when the information is broadcast next week about the Senators that were spyed on without a warrant, LOL, you will defend that too. Boy I wish I had an ideology that I had to defend daily.

    Tell me Roy, what are you proud of since 2000 when conservative ideologies have controlled the Congress and the White House??? What great happening have occurred. What can we stand up and yell from the rooftops about. Oh yea, they gave me an extra few hundred dollars to spend at WalMart in tax money. Thanks GW, I bought a washing machine. Where's the rest of my return on investment? Give me...say ten amazing happenings and I'll give you a hundred for you to spin on.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:24:00 AM  

  • I see Jeff has returned to LOL LOL Land. Guess he thinks his little LOLs are cute. Whatever.
    So, now, if a suspicious character who calls himself Osama Smith were heading down the road with a suspicious ticking package toward Jeff's house - which of course he would not likely do, because he finds comfort in the things Jeff says - but if he were on his way, 71 hours away (or any amount of time Jeff feels OK with) Jeff would be willing to risk the lives of his family while everyone waits for a sleepy judge to decide whether anything should be done. Or any other technicality, Jeff, if you want to use your silly time frame technicalities.
    Jeffs family turns to vapor. Oops. But Jeff's OK with that.
    If that's OK with Jeff for his family, it's still not OK with me for mine.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:46:00 AM  

  • Anyone curious? Here's the main definitions in use on the internet.
    Definition: LOL (Weakly defined Internet slang)
    LOL (also spelled lol) is a TLA, the variable abbreviation for , "lots of love", "laughing out loud", "lord o lord,", "lots of love", "lots of lust", "lack of laughter". (And also other less commonly used definitions).

    It looks like LOL can be used in whatever way a person wants to use it for. In this blog, it has also become used as an abbreviation for lollipop, and a variation on La La Land. There is no formal definition, so make whatever you want to make out of it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 02, 2006 10:38:00 AM  

  • I forgot Kelly...the Lollipop name calling....doesn't just make you so angry when someone states the truth and the only defense is to call him a name. Boy don't you wish you had some ability to answer what is said.

    MT, yes, the same whistler blower who took the story to the NYT, is coming out with names of the Senators, names of these same warrantless wiretaps between citizens here in the states, not overseas. Between American to American. And you are wrong, the Constitution nor wartime authority does not give power to bypass the Constitution or the laws set up to protect it. This is the exact same person as was intimate to the project and felt it wrong and illegal, that's why he came forward. Hearing are next week in Congress and he's going to deliver a terrible blow to this country. Again, I ask why you know it was not illegal. Is that the same reasoning that has overlooked the treatment we have shown our captives. Because (Mr. Torture is good) Gonzalez told him it was OK? You know it goes on and on. But I know that their will be a defense next week too. And someone will blame Bill Clinton. LOL (yes....laughing out loud but crying in disgust on the inside).

    All I can ask Murrieta T is, what do you know about war, except what you read?? I know you know nothing. Bobby traps were also a big part of Vietnam they killed innocents as well as....do I call the Viet Cong insurgents? I sadly killed innocent people too and until you know that feeling is you may stand up and say anything and defend anything but you will never ever know. The children I was talking about are a direct result of our bombings and our air and ground assaults from the US. Yes, thousands die too at the hands of their own people. But we can only change what we have control of. We are NEVER going to end the insurgency nor can we ever end terrorists. They have been with us forever and will be here forever. Whenever radical politics or religions oppose each other, terrorism will be the end result. We can't kill them all. Whatever President is in power, there is always the chance we will be hit. This President is doing nothing different then any would do. They would have the exact same military commanders in place, the same intelligence and they are the ones running the show, the President doesn't actually command the troops in the field. He sets down high policy. So if it were Bush or Kerry or Bozo, we would have the same security here.

    Martha came out yesterday using Pentagon information that there are less then one thousand Al Queda members in Iraq fighting today. The insurgency is 95% Iraqi. These are insurgents fighting for their beliefs and for control of Iraq. They can fight the military only one way, through terrorism. They can't stand in a line or in trenches. They snipe, they blow up people. Youre right, their purpose is to undermine the American public. It's the only strategy they have. You believe that these insurgents are going to fly here and attack us? I can't argue with someone who believes and doesnt want to question.

    Then why arent we sending the troops to attack Bin Laden? I'm all for that and have been. But he's still running loose. Insurgents are not going to attack us. They are fighting within their country. We are not keeping Al Queda boxed in Iraq. They are their for one purpose only. It gives them a free shot at our military and they don't have to go far to do it. Thats it. You can see that the Bush team has you so afraid and so panicked into thinking differently.

    However, you say it's wrong for me to ask why my brothers are dying? Tell me why they are yourself? Tell me the purpose?? To rid the world of a powerless Dictator. If that was the purpose, the CIA could have gone in and taken him out. The military could have dropped enough bombs to take him out. That wasn't the purpose. It was to change the government to a Democracy. To enrich and secure the oil supplies of that country. Now what is happening is that the Democracy has installed a religious type Theocracy that is Iran leaning. The oil we thought we would secure is now at risk. The police and military there can't control the country and the religious factions are on the brink of a civil war. Today Bush asked for Billions more in aid, yet the infrastructure is worse then when Hussian was in control. So tell me MT, what is this worth to YOU. More lives??? Billions of dollars???? To do what??? Why should a young man die and never live a full life. Why should any more women and children die....because of your ideology??

    And we haven't even addressed Katrina.....but I just know you have all the reasons why an American city lays in destruction and we are sending another 100 billion to build schools in Iraq.
    I don't know why that is, but I sure want answers.

    I like orange lollipops if you want to drop some by...it would be a kind of tribute to us that question everything we are told and want answers.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:44:00 AM  

  • 72 hours? The mumber of lives lost in Katrina was a lot of lives, but would only be a fraction of those that could be lost in one city after another if in each case a 72 hour head start were allowed. And sure, why not open our doors to Bin Laden's boys in Iraq so they can come over here and stop fighting with our troops. Just not fair to make the military fight when civilians could do it so much better. Now, does that really make sense? Jeff, do you really think those guys are going to play by your rules? Whether here or there they are going to fight us. If you haven't noticed Jeff, they really don't like us. If bin Laden read your posts, he'd probably be saying 'lol', and he'd probably give you all the orange suckers you wanted if that would keep you writing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 02, 2006 1:23:00 PM  

  • Murrieta T, they are not coming here. If they were you don't think they would have crossed our pourous borders?

    I am all for our attacking, destroying Al Queda. Why is it so hard to understand that insurgents from Iraq have no interest in coming to America. They want the US out of Iraq. Al Queda is a very very small percentage of the people fighting us in Iraq. There are more Al Queda in Afgahnistan by far and probably more all over the world. Our fighting in Iraq will not keep them from coming here. Why is that too hard to understand. Most historians laugh at our President when he uses that as an excuse to be in Iraq.

    Pride. This is the part of war that you don't get. You don't want them to die for nothing. You want to be proud of how they died. So, it is your feeling that if you had a son, and he joined the military and he lost his life, it would be a terrible thing but at least you'd be proud. Pride is truly empty when it comes dying for nothing. These boys went thinking they were going to stop a madman from blowing up the world or mass killing many people. Remember the word WMD??? I'm sure three years ago every conversation you had included that word. But today its an embarrassing word. What they found is they went to drive out a madman and his family and are left in the middle of a civil war with Al Queda terrorists mixed in. Now they are acting like a police force which they have no training and no experience doing. I know....I was in a POLICE ACTION. There is no pride for a soldier when he can't achieve a goal. These guys were proud that they overran Iraq in a few weeks. But its like chasing a band of indians out into the desert and feeling good you chased them away. But when night comes your still out in that desert and every shadow moves and they slowly demoralize and KILL you. You say, as a soldier, what am I doing alone in this desert. There is nothing left to do.

    So MT, when your sons, if you have some, enlist, if they do. I hope pride takes you far if they sadly perish. Pride is for Generals and Politicians. It's not for families that have lost sons and daughters. I had to deliver telegrams, I know.

    Anything GW was asked by the public was from a planted invitee. The questions are prepared and staged. It doesn't matter what President it is. The only ones that aren't are from the Press.

    Are all the things you listed worth the lives of 2250 American boys and the wounding of 25000 more??? If it is then our world is in sad shape. The funds accomplishing all these things because we bombed the infrastructure to shreads....shock and awe....have not brought the Iraq people close to the levels before the war. So far we have spent 350 billion to replace, kind of, what we blew up. We killed far more Iraq civilians, even if Hussian had tortured and killed people at the same pace he was doing it.

    If we are there to help your patriotic pride and to rebuild what we destroyed, what did we accomplish. I don't think I twisted anything. You said....sadly...if they are going to die...I WANT THEM TO DIE PROUD. We sooner then later will leave Iraq and I personally feel it will fall again to some sort of religious based government
    matching Iran. These countries will never have our Democracy. Palestine is Democratic right and you see what they got.

    Pride is for Generals and Politicians and Ideolouges. Death is for our sons and daughters and their families to live with. Yes, if we had captured or killed Bin Laden. Yes if we destroyed Al Queda. No pride in destroying a country that had no connection to Al Queda, so a son could clean up his father's poor judgment.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:53:00 PM  

  • Jeff: They are not crossing our porous borders because, for one thing, they are pretty well engaged at the moment. It's not because they wish us well.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:26:00 PM  

  • I don't think we are engaging them, I believe they are engaging us at their time and place of choosing. Where have you been? Al Queda was not in Iraq, they came at will. But of course if youre implying that Iraqi insurgents aren't then go ask GW about WMD's and how he's going to fix Katrina....you remember...Brownie's doing a hell of a job. He has more stories of fear and scare tactics for you.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:33:00 PM  

  • Nope. Implying nothing. They are definitely busy over there. No time right now for another 911. That's the reality of the situation, even if it does not look that way to you. And by the way, the earth goes around the sun, not the other way around. Even if it doesn't look that way to you. You can't just see everything from your own limited perspective and think you've got it all figured out. Well, I guess you can think that, but of course it would not be right. No offense, I just think you're wrong. And maybe you are. That's OK. We're all wrong once in a while.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:43:00 PM  

  • As a new persona visiting this blog, I notice that the main discussion here seems more suited to the National Politics post below.

    I invite you all to visit that post where I gave my feelings about the current State of our Union.

    Totally disgusted

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, February 03, 2006 12:22:00 AM  

  • Roy and Murrieta T, we've talked out our points and we are all convinced of our beliefs. I have heard you both state as you did in your above post and Roy has stated that you believe there were WMD's and somehow a non-partisan commission using experts said they didn't exist. Weapons inspectors ON SITE said they didn't exist, yet your wanting to believe somehow this President and his people were right, that they would never mislead or lie about such things. Of course other Presidents heard the same intelligence but they didn't take us to war and put this country and its military in such a fix. It just doesn't make sense to me nor to anyone that uses any logic, most of the American people believe they were never any WMD's left there. I can't argue my points with people that cannot reasonably understand that sometimes people don't have our best interest at heart, but other agendas. Our beliefs will be proven by history not on a blog. But if you believe that this President would not intentionally mislead this country take heed at his State of the Union address.

    (The president's State of the Union reference to Mideast oil made headlines nationwide Wednesday because of his assertion that "America is addicted to oil" and his call to "break this addiction."
    Bush vowed to fund research into better batteries for hybrid vehicles and more production of the alternative fuel ethanol, setting a lofty goal of replacing "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."
    He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
    Not exactly, though, it turns out.
    "This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.
    He said the broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives. He acknowledged that oil is a freely traded commodity bought and sold globally by private firms. Consequently, it would be very difficult to reduce imports from any single region, especially the most oil-rich region on Earth.
    Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.")

    I copied this above from the Wall Street Journal, of course not NewMax or Fox News, but the WSJ is basically a conservative leaning journal.

    So you have to decide, what would this administration say or do to forward it's agenda. I say anything they want.

    It's the same reasoning I use to look at the deeds of Seyarto, McAlister and VanHaaster. You all think that Seyarto has our best interests at heart, yet I believe otherwise. If you logically look at him you would see there are major issues in his ethics. But if you want, you can see him in any light you want and argue it. Again, we will pay the ultimate price, whether it be in Murrieta or Washington.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, February 03, 2006 5:37:00 AM  

  • What is going on here? I am interested in the topic Ed Faunce posted and all Rholmgren, Jeff and Murrieta T do is ramble on and on in a private conversation about Iraq and national politics. Please take your longwinded arguments to an appropriate site. Thank you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, February 03, 2006 6:23:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren,
    you made a good point, if you can't fight them, join them.
    However, Kunkle seperated blog sites into domestic, national and Murrieta, therefore I think it is a good idea to pay attention to the topics. No offense.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, February 03, 2006 8:08:00 PM  

  • I see Councilman Gibbs is using his head and is asking that any changes to the General Plan need to be approved by a 4 of 5 vote instead of a majority. And the Californian goes on to quote our default Mayor saying that the change has drawbacks. Og course it does Kelly!!!! And you say you are ethical. LOL

    Again Kelly is for the 3 to 2 voting block that he hopes to regain but isn't sure enough that he could get a 4 of 5 voting block in order to steam roll his developer agenda. This new voting plan would only help our City protect itself from unscrupulous Councilmen who have Corporate interest over our interest. The default Mayor and deadbeat Doug will vote and fight this resident protection. Stand up and voice your opinions to the senseable Councilmen Gibbs and to Enochs and Ostling. This is a MUST PASS vote. We need to take hold of our City and this is a start.

    They want to limit our power through challenges by earlier passing a vote to limit the number of free challenges a Councilmen can make for a resident. I say we limit their ability to make changes to our land.

    Gibbs continues to lead this Council in a sensible direction.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, February 04, 2006 5:42:00 AM  

  • Jeff, good points at 5:42.

    I have to go off topic for just a second. This business about retaliation in the middle east for a political or religious cartoon is making me think. In some country this AM a danish embassy was set on fire in retaliation for the cartoon. These same nutcakes are talking about killing people in further retaliation for the cartoon. OK, so cartoon = blood and fire in their minds. So, if someone set the nutcake's buildings on fire and killed a few of their own, they might retaliate by drawing a cartoon?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, February 04, 2006 9:17:00 AM  

  • MT, just a question. Why do you follow what Arab web sites use for cartoons? You sound like you follow this type of tuff. Again, just a question?
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, February 04, 2006 2:20:00 PM  

  • OK MT, I read in the Californian where our Council faces the "eminent domain" issue which I also am totally against. What should be done in the case of some land that blocks road work from happening? What should happen in this case?
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:43:00 AM  

  • Jeff,

    Like (probably) most people in town, I don't check this forum as often as I should. But after reading the news this morning, I did check in and found your question to MT at 6:43. I would like to add a brief response to that question.

    My view on eminent domain is that forced takings should never happen in matters of discretionary land use (such as parks or public buildings). In those cases, the "willing buyer, willing seller" principle should apply, and if the government entity does not offer enough to make the property owner a willing seller, then the government keeps it's money and the property owner keeps his or her land. However, public land use is sometimes completely unavoidable (one of the few examples of which would be roads). In such instances, where the seller is forced, then that forced sale should be only with upper-end compensation because of the fact that the taking is indeed an involuntary surrender of property, which is a major issue in a country founded on individual rights and freedoms.

    The case before the city right now is, according to the news article I read, involving a "strip" of land for which the city is offering $1,700. I do not know how much land is involved, but my first impression is that something is wrong with this picture.

    Right now, the commercial land market for MU-3 parcels in the area from Murrieta Hot Springs Road north to at least Juniper is at or somewhere in excess of $20 per square foot. This is according to recent actual sale figures I have seen. It does not take much calculation to see how much land $1700 would buy at that rate (almost none). And this is not a discussion of a voluntary sale by the property owner, but rather a forced sale which creates an even greater obligation by the governing entity to make things right.

    I don't know of a single piece of land in the MU-3 areas, even very tiny pieces, for which I personally would not pay many times more than $1700. To determine fair market value, which is by the most fundamental definition the highest price a willing buyer and willing seller would pay, I am certain that if the situation were such that the city had to enter a bidding contest with anyone who wanted to join the bidding over any piece of land between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Juniper, the per-square-foot fair market value would be well in excess of $20 per square foot. The fact that a government entity may want to condemn a strip of land should not cause the per square foot market value of any piece of land to fall by even one cent.

    Tom Suttle

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sunday, February 05, 2006 8:40:00 AM  

  • This case is very much similiar to the Riv Co case (Menifee) where the landowner's are fighting the "taking" for a storm drainage easement. The County's (staff) response is that they are not taking the land in fee, but rather as an easement. The landowner would still be required to pay taxes on the encumbered land, plus be liable for any storm structure damage. As I read the Murrieta case, it is about an "Easement" for aerial lines (electric) relocated due the widening of Jefferson. Easement or fee, the result is the same. The landowner loses there right of enjoyment of the land. And in the case of an easement, there is no reduction in taxes, so the landowner gets shafted twice.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, February 06, 2006 9:32:00 PM  

  • So Kelly you thought we forgot about you. A glowing example of your failures came out tonight and the glowing example of a true leader of our community stood out. Deadbeat Doug and our default Mayor Kelly voted for the Alexander Community project to pass months ago. They don't have high standards for Murrieta, but are worried what it costs developers to take the high road. They don't care when residents are not happy with a development. They belittle us. Yet Gibbs stood up and said NO. He demanded better for the residents of this town. He challenged AC. Kelly, did you hear his comment about being their worst nightmare?????? That's a Councilman!!! Then Gibbs stood tall for himself and said it wasn't enough but he had to let it pass because he himself had set the bar too low. I like that thinking!!! Here is a man Murrieta should stand along side and say thank you to. Kelly and Dougie failed this City and there is the proof. Gibbs made this City proud. We need to eliminate Seyarto and McAlister as they have a separate agenda. Serving the developers and making names for themselves far beyond local politics. I saw a real man tonight, one I wish we could copy his ethics and install them in each of the other members. Thank you Councilman Gibbs for making me proud I voted for you. Kelly and Dougie, if you had any ethics, you'd walk over to Gibbs and thank him for doing your job and hand him your $600 checks. You didn't earn them, he did!
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:38:00 PM  

  • And did you also notice Jeff, that DM and KS voted to oppose Gibbs suggestion that a supermajority be required to change the General Plan?

    KS claimed he championed "majority rules" -- but of course he is simply trying to hang onto the chance to get back to the 3 to 2 voting block of the former Council.

    KS did not seem to understand the difference between voting to change the General Plan and other types of votes. The GP has already been through an exhaustive process and has been adopted as the "constitution" for planning our City.

    DM's arguments were no better. His comments reflect his new found career.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 07, 2006 10:59:00 PM  

  • DM’s comments about the super majority fell right in line with his actions. He stated that the super majority vote might “temp” council members into political grandstanding. Before the vote was even taken he was already “temped” when he said, “no matter how I vote I will stand by the majority”. Then he felt the need to reverberate the same the message at the close of meeting. Talk about transparent! It must be a bible thumper thing.
    Just Curious.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:15:00 AM  

  • MT, don't you see it's the KS and DM tag team on every vote??? I can understand once in a while, but with each vote the vote as a team.

    And yes, your point is mine MT, Gibbs held them to a higher standard and it still wasn't high enough. I think he was kicking himself a little that he set it too low. But can't you see where KS and DM's bread is buttered? They didn't set a better standard and if the developer had proposed tents be put up on that site, we'd have a plot of land with tents. Kelly's big talk and his travels are fine. But he is involved that way because he wants his name out there. He wants to get beyond this city. He does not work hard for this city. He works hard to impress the Development community and to impress County and State officials. They failed on this project. Gibbs truly did the right thing. He's learning remember and this was a learning experience for him too. Good for him. Just from the Mayor switcharoo and this debacle, Seyarto has no place on the Murrieta City Council.

    The 4 vote process is a no brainer for those in this city that want to protect all of our rights. It is a scary thing for the VanHaaster crew. They now will have to trick us into two Council members plus Kelly's return to change the General Plan.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:29:00 AM  

  • Roy, I would agree its a tough call about investors on property. But isn't that what most all of us do in one way or another? Invest in property? How do you discriminate between one or the other? It would never work, nor do I think it would be lawful. Whoever owns the property is the owner, no matter what their purpose.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:31:00 PM  

  • Rholmgren must be a government social economist in training. Yes lets be suspicious of land owners and while we are at it lets be suspicious of anyone who speculates on stocks or bonds or or the point spread in a super bowl game. Theyre all a bunch of money lusting capitalist pigs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:12:00 PM  

  • 5:12 - Hold on there. If Rholmgren has information about right of way properties being bought up by people who have insider information I want to know about it. Insider trading is not playing by the rules. Most of the big pieces of land are owned by major developers, and those guys have some insider connections in Murrieta. If Rholmgren is right about this, and he says he has noticed things, we all should be told. If anyone knows about Murrieta insider matters, it would be someone with ties to major development companys. Most people who read the blog do not have the kind of friendly communication Rholmgren has with housing developer types. We should listen to what he has to say. Spill the beans Rholmgren. We won't tell anyone you told us.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:31:00 PM  

  • Whoops Rholmgren, it was NOT reported that Enochs' criminal trial would continue into 2008. That comment came from a story in the PE by Jessica Zisko.

    She called me the night before that story ran and said that some attorneys had speculated that it might take that long. She asked me what I thought. I said that criminal cases have priority over civil trials. In fact the Riverside County Superior Court just closed down civil trials for about 2 months to catch up the criminal trials.

    You are jumping the gun. Enochs pled not guilty. Let the process run its course. You have no business pre-juding. Only DM has called for Enochs to resign -- and that is definitely a case of the blackened pot trying to divert attention.

    DM is a deadbeat dad who got sued by the Riverside County DA for failure to support his children. If he would abandon his own flesh and blood, why would you, or anyone for that matter, believe that he would be faithful to Murrietans.

    Leave it be and get off that soapbox. It's a loser.

    Edward Faunce

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:26:00 PM  

  • Jeeze Louise Rholmgren. Do you have any idea how much of any commodity has to be accumulated to drive up market prices? I read the Hunts (of ketchup family fortune fame) did it for a while with silver in 1980, but then their scheme ran out of steam and their big lode of silver hit the skids. The real estate market is much harder to move than any commodities sector, even locally. But I'll grant you this much,,, if you hear Bill Gates or someone they call the Oracle of Omaha has been looking at land in Murrieta, don't sell short.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:29:00 PM  

  • Yes thats right Roy, this isn't America anymore its conservoland, where only conservatives have power and freedom and they make up all the rules as they go along. So that would be your stance on ANY politician indicted or suspected of a felony?? What youre saying is the ALL politicians should step down, not only here, but for the Good of our Nation right? I agree then!!! Totally. If what you are saying is true. Tom Delay should probably be tortured for his extent at breaking and violating PUBLIC trusts. And just think Enochs were private? He just gets the ruler across his hands. And since private actions taints public image I think Deadbeat Doug should be walked through the tar and feather gaunlet on his way to political retirement. What is your opinion on what Roy said MT? Should all indicted politicians step down at the indictment for both private and personal problems? Works both ways Mr Conservo-boy. Start defending again. This is so much fun.

    Roy here is youre earlier post today, "I have (noticed) around the area where long time property owners sell out well in advance of projects to people, or groups, that anticipate being bought out by the city or county." Seems to me that when someone notices something, they have seen it happen, wouldn't you think MT?? But then you change you tune in a later post, " I was just (wondering) if anyone thought about whether that type of speculation was right or wrong." Noticing and wondering are two different verbs completely and they would mislead anyone to thinking you have information that others don't.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:37:00 PM  

  • Attorneys can delay and delay and delay," Mayor Kelly Seyarto said. "Meanwhile, you have a community that looks to us for decision-making, and now you have a serious issue of concern. People are going to start questioning his motivations, and he has to take a look at whether he can maintain a sense of credibility".

    This is our default Mayor's quote in the Press Enterprise. A Councilmen who had shown us his credibility in his actions, his votes and his deliberate manipulation of the newly created Mayorial system. He showed his credibility when he voted on the Alexander Community complex. This is a Councilmen that I think has no business representing us and we allow him to decide what happens. He arrogantly snubs his nose at the residents of this town with his attitude and his vote, which always sides with either the Development Community or with the Chamber of Commerce. Is vote on development issues always swing toward these two powerhouse groups, and never sides with the homeowner. So as we head into an election year. Who do you want to represent you? A Councilmen that works for you like Councilmen Gibbs, or a bully for Developers like Seyarto? Here's a challenge. Lets come up with slogans against the voting block of Seyarto and Deadbeat Doug.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:25:00 PM  

  • Hasn’t KS made implications that he isn’t going to run come November? For those that know him, these implications can’t be trusted. As quoted in the California, speaking on the proposed supermajority vote on GP changes, he says "If there is an opportunity to change back to a simple majority, I would do it because I believe that is a better system," Seyarto said Wednesday. He added that he probably would not have an opportunity to overturn the ordinance until after November's elections, when his seat as well as Ostling's and Gibbs' will be before the voters. Here again is another implication, but one on the flip side, implying that he will be running. And another implication in the statement is he already has ideas of who else will be voted in that will aid in the (his) developers cause.
    Just Curious.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:21:00 AM  

  • Just Curious,

    I haven’t read or heard anything that stated KS wasn’t going to run again, maybe you’re thinking of JvH who stated that he wasn’t going run for city council in November.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:24:00 AM  

  • Roy, this is exactly what I meant by you not answering questions possed to you. Why isn't it the same when you talk about Federal politicians, who really affect our day to day lives. These are real embarrassements to our country, because their ethics betrayed this country. So let's talk about Delay, Frist, Ney, Libby and the horde that are under indictment. Ask for them to resign Roy and you will be credible. But Enochs is someone you dislike because he took a stand against your two boys Seyarto and McAlister. You want only him to step down for you, not for the good of Murrieta, or you'd be condemming any politician, especially those that commit ethics problems using their office for political profit.

    We know you are tied to the development world Roy and anything to do with getting the chance to bring in pro-development/anti-resident Councilmen helps you make money. If Enochs, Ostling's seats are up for grabs the likelihood is you will get one of your boys in. Start being credible when invoking the betterment of Murrieta over your personal business profits.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:20:00 AM  

  • Historical Note: In the 1990's, a councilman named Alongi in Elsinore was a major public problem, even blowing whistles during council meetings to disrupt other speakers. Like everyone else, he had some good ideas and some bad ideas, but some say his conduct was way below his office. Like Enochs, he was a big vote getter. And like Enochs, he had legal problems, in some ways more serious because of the way they related to the city. Alongi ended up being kicked out of office (not by the voters) because of the outcome of those problems. But hey folks, he came back! Loopholes existed that let him re-enter the political scene. A quieter Alongi once again became again a fixture in Elsinore politics. The question we need to be asking ourselves: Are the voters of Murrieta any smarter than the voters of Lake Elsinore?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:30:00 AM  

  • And yes, lets invoke the Doug sympathy card. Losing a child is a horrible experience. Running out on that child and leaving him abandoned and then using it for sympathy is almost sick...no it is sick. Deadbeat parents, who haven't apologized, unethical politicians who reject assignments for political gain don't belong on my City Council.

    Now both Seyarto and McAlister have made comments about Enochs in the paper. Look again at the voting pattern friends. Look at the Alexander Community vote of months ago, which two Councilmen voted twice to approve and to rush this slum project through...the two "D"s, Deadbeat Doug and Default Mayor Kelly. What two Councilmen voted against a stronger voting system when changing our General Plan?? Who else the Double D's. Their only interest as witnessed in the last two major development votes is to try and wrestle the power back to the way they had it before. The way the controlled our Council before the recall. They want back that voting block and if we let them have it the rest of our buildout will look like slums and we WILL leave improvements and our tax money on the table. Don't let them rush through anymore slum projects. Get Seyarto out of our government and make sure that we replace Ostling and Seyarto with ETHICAL, CARING RESIDENTS, who are politicians second and our neighbors first.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:34:00 AM  

  • How many people really read this site? Not many. How much impact will it have on the elections this year? Not enough to matter.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:57:00 AM  

  • 11:57, You're right. But support can start here. There is no reason we can't send out our own fliers asking residents to get involved. Look what Rescue Murrieta was able to do. If it's money we need we will get it, if it's resources we need there are ways to get them. It takes the caring of getting involved. We need to start now as Ed Faunce did by encouraging people to come talk at his home. Its other people that used hard work and to make things work.

    Did you think Rescue Murrieta could get a Councilmen recalled last year? Probably not, but they were able to remove a cancer and we have more work to do.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:38:00 PM  

  • What do you want your flier to say? Blogger Jeff and his lemmings want you to rock the vote in Murrieta?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:01:00 PM  

  • Anon 1:01 (Kelly) it seems you appear every once in awhile and when you are identified through various words, you vanish. Come out, come out wherever you are and face the music.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:07:00 PM  

  • Jeff since the first time I read this blog rholmgren has had his head so far up KS's backside he can't see straight. Anytime JVH, KS or DM has said something, their brown nosed puppy dog came running up with the propaganda and the endless corporate chatter. Thanks for letting us all know he's profiting off development money, it shows. He has tried to come off as a non-connected homeowner. Little brown nosed puppy dog go running back home before Jeff kicks you in the rear end.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:52:00 PM  

  • Well, thats see.....Roy....I see people buying up land prior to the City having to buy it.....No wait.....I meant to say I was wondering. I guess you aren't slick enough Roy just another verbal bully and propagandist. But you are tied.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:03:00 PM  

  • Roy, the definition of the word propaganda is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."

    I don't have a doctrine nor do I represent anyone but me. You on the other hand represent your ideology, your agenda and that of Corporate players in our city game. I never have said anything that I don't think is totally true, and if proven wrong, learned long ago to stand up and be a man and say I am wrong. You on the other....fit only propaganda, not the other part.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, February 10, 2006 9:22:00 AM  

  • No there are left wing nut cases too but you are Roy, a right winger....if I was talking to you and you were spouting your left wing propaganda, I'd challenge that too. You are a dyed in the wool conservative and I laugh as you try to defend and find ways to support this failure of an ideology. Thank for yourself once. Pick and choose what to believe in. What are you 30 years old?

    I believe in right and wrong. I challenge the wrongs. You called what I say HALF-TRUTHS....prove the half lie.
    Jeff

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, February 10, 2006 3:33:00 PM  

  • NOTICE TO EVERYONE: ON APRIL 18, 2006, THERE WAS EITHER A MALFUNCTION OR INTENTIONAL SABOTAGE OF THE MOST CURRENT STRING IN THIS BLOG ("ENOCHS AND THE DA"). INTENTIONAL OR NOT, THE RESULT IS DISRUPTION IN THE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN C0MMUNITY MEMBERS. PLEASE CONTINUE COMMUNICATING ON THIS STRING AND INFORM EVERYONE YOU CAN THINK OF. THIS DISRUPTIVE CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED INTENTIONAL GIVEN THE NATURE OF POLITICS IN MURRIETA AND GIVEN THE "DIRTY TRICKS" THAT HAD BEEN COMMON IN THE LAST ELECTION PERIOD. THIS PROVES THAT A MORE RELIABLE BLOG WEBSITE MUST BE INSTITUTED VERY SOON.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:13:00 PM  

  • is there a more reliable blog website yet?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, August 19, 2006 8:54:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Google