Tuesday’s Quick Hits

Here are a few topics that caught my attention for today’s column:

  • Matt Rosendale
  • Great Falls Public Safety Levy
  • Tucker Carlson’s January 6


If you read The Western Word on Monday then you saw that I was one of the first to report about several posts on Twitter that show U.S. Representative Matt Rosendale (R-MT) posing with some people who are supposedly neo-Nazi and pro-Hitler supporters.

I said that I do think that the posts have raised enough questions for Rosendale to respond. Of course, the old stand-by answer is, “As an elected official, I get my photo taken with hundreds of people.”

I asked, “Who are THESE PEOPLE, Congressman?”

Later in the day, Rosendale responded to press inquiries telling Lee Newspapers that “he unwittingly posed for a photo with high profile members of the neo-Nazi movement last week walking between congressional hearings.”

He did kind of use my talking point, telling Lee Newspapers:

“I was asked for a photo while walking between hearings, accommodating as I do for all photo requests, and was not aware of the individuals’ identity or affiliation with these hate groups that stand in stark contrast to my personal beliefs.”

Face it, Matt, you’re a hero to people like this. They felt comfortable having their photo taken with you. That should tell your constituents quite a lot.

Lee Newspapers did rightly point out the following:

“This isn’t Rosendale’s first compromising photo with rightwing extremists. The Eastern Montana representative is trolled constantly on social media with a 2014 photo of Rosendale speaking at an Oath Keepers rally in Kalispell.”

Are the folks in eastern Montana really dumb enough to keep sending Rosendale to Washington?

Read the Lee Newspapers article HERE.


The Electric is reporting that tonight (Tuesday) the Great Falls City Commissioners will consider sending the proposed public safety levy to the ballot during their March 7 meeting.

You know they will approve it.

According to The Electric:

Based on the current taxable value of the City, the property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $100,000 would increase by $140.06 per year, and property taxes on a home with an assessed market value for tax purposes of $200,000 would increase by $280.11 per year.”

No matter how commissioners spin it, a “Yes” vote by a commissioner to send the proposal to the voters is a vote by that commissioner to raise our taxes.

Will any commissioner have the guts to say “No” to raising our taxes?

That $280 a year could buy a lot of basic essentials, like food, pay for gas and electricity, help with medical bills, etc.

When this proposal appears on the ballot, I urge all Great Falls residents to vote “NO.”

The article from The Electric can be found HERE.


Last month I wrote about Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy giving Fox News host Tucker Carlson thousands of hours of surveillance footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Carlson started rewriting history this week.

CNN reported that Carlson used the footage on Monday night to portray those who broke into the U.S. Capitol as mostly peaceful patriots who simply felt wronged by the system. Carlson, who falsely claimed the footage provided “conclusive” evidence proving Democrats “lied” about the events of January 6, aired footage showing some people taking selfies and meandering through the U.S. Capitol.

It was wrong for McCarthy to give Carlson the footage, but what troubles me most is there are millions of MAGA folks who don’t watch anything else but Fox News. They will think that what Carlson says is the absolute truth.

Read the CNN report HERE. See how Fox News reported it HERE.

## THE END ##

11 thoughts on “Tuesday’s Quick Hits

  1. So, if you like the library the way it is vote No on the levy.
    If you want the library to greatly expand services vote Yes.
    I think I’ll probably vote Yes on the Public Safety Levy.

    • I think there’s more to the library levy than if it does not pass it will stay the same. They have great information on their website which I think everyone should read:


      I can support the library levy because I’ve seen firsthand how it helped me and my family.

      As for the Public Safety Levy – that’s a big NO from me. Nobody will stand up against the city manager and department heads and say “NO.” The commissioners are rubber-stamping “Yes” to almost everything.

      I am writing about it in today’s column.

      Thanks, -JmB

      • “Nobody will stand up”
        It’s not that hard to do. I think they just agree that the levy for safety is the best option.
        They, 2 at least, stood up to funding a library pro levy ad campaign. I thought that was illegal but I’m not a lawyer.

      • I think it was the correct move for the two commissioners to vote against the ad campaign. I’ve not seen enough of it. Seem like they are pro-city and anti-residents on many votes.
        It’s time for Mary to run for city commission again.
        Thanks, JmB

  2. Have we reached the limits of this traitorous conduct ? The speaker of the house and Tucker Carlson. You can’t be serious. But they are openly traitorous to our system.

  3. the number of people denying the results of free and fair elections is scary, dangerous and is corrupting our free speech principles. Have we reached the limits of this traitorous conduct?

  4. Regarding the safety levy

    At the Feb 7 commission work session Commissioner Wolff made the out-of-the-blue claim that the commission hadn’t raised our taxes in two years, which apparently is some kind of justification in and of itself for raising taxes. But Commissioner Wolff was part of the commission just last year when they voted for property tax increases to take three years worth of “inflation factor” as well as hiking the permissive medical levy. The effect of those two hikes was an additional $23+ / yr on a $200K house according to the Electric story. And that assumed current assessed value, the 2021 number based on January 2020.


    I’m not against a public safety levy per se, but I am opposed to just throwing money into bloating public payroll and hoping for the best. They are asking us to approve what amounts to a ~60% increase for the City general fund. We have a right to know exactly what we should expect to get for that money. Or one would think we have that right.

    But they steadfastly refuse to say just exactly what we would get for our tax money, like real businesses would require of departmental proposals asking for a big budget increase. Manager Doyon told Commissioner Tryon he wanted the commission to get the money process going first, and they could maybe figure out things like that later. How backasswards is that?

    Other than the number of public payroll (and “Cadillac benefits”) positions they want to add there’s no specific targets, such as “reduce property crime by w%” or “clear backlogged cases x% faster” or “more resources to focus on fentanyl trafficking will reduce overdoses by y%” or “more fire resources will improve insurance ratings by z%” or anything like that. Nothing at all to ever hold anyone accountable if the vague specified Public Benefits fail to materialize.

    The library has told us exactly what we should expect for our money if we approve their levy, with numbers of days and hours. The County told us what we would get for their safety levy, a specific pay raise for the deputies. But with this City levy it is just throw money and pray that vague platitudes like “increased proactive enforcement” might accomplish … something.

    • The commissioners seem to think nobody pays attention or there’s no record of what is done.
      Crazy times in the city. Thanks, JmB

      • What the commissioners KNOW is that it makes very little difference if anyone pays attention. The City manager makes all the decisions, carefully steers all the discussions, and leads the commission by the nose to predetermined conclusions. The commission’s primary purpose is not to actually make policy but to lend a patina of “public accountability” to City government because they’re elected … to sit there at their dais, politely say “Thank you” to comments, and absorb/deflect any public anger or criticism. Before voting yes on whatever the City Manager wanted in the first place.

        The whole Crime Task Force process was a sham leading up to this levy, despite initial claims it wasn’t necessarily about that. The task force was carefully directed and shepherded to its conclusions, mostly by the City Manager, who scheduled the presenters and what facts were considered. Of all the many recommendations made at the end of that process, “public safety levy” is the only one that’s gotten any attention whatsoever from the commission and City staff in the intervening two years. All the rest that might have reduced crime or cut costs have been buried and/or ignored. Increased public headcount and payroll appears to have been the ultimate goal all along.

        The public’s sole recourse is at the polls. Not as far as commissioners go, because they’re merely replaceable pawns in this form of city government, but on real questions like this safety levy.

      • I’d like to see an independent-minded “no new taxes” hardliner run for commissioner.

Comments are closed.