Wednesday, July 29, 2015

More Columbian stupidity: you cannot lock up legislators in this state.

Of the many mistakes the legislature has made... and they could fill a book... acknowledging the McCleary "decision" is at the top of the list.

This blog has been over the many legal reasons why: separation of powers, legislative immunity, immunity from civil suit... all of which are in resident in the very same state constitution the Nine Puget Sound Wizards point to as they spout their arbitrary decision, arbitrarily arrived at, with an arbitrary time table using arbitrary numbers.

The easiest solution would be for both Houses to go back into session... and do... nothing.

Meanwhile, a moron working for the Lazy C actually demands the arrest.... THE ARREST.... of legislators like this was Nazi Germany and he was Heinrich Himmler.

Legislators CANNOT be arrested.  In fact, during session, they can't even be served with any civil process:
SECTION 16 PRIVILEGES FROM ARREST. Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.
Not even the morons on the state supreme court believe that failing to jump through their arbitrary hoop represents "Treason, felony and breach of the peace."

But like I said, the Houses can... and should... go back into session... and remain in session... and do absolutely nothing.

This can be done with minimal effort and essentially zero cost: the Houses can remain in proforma session indefinitely, thereby blocking any civil action indefinitely.

None of this would be needed had the GOP Senate told the Supreme Court to get bent.

But there has been a testicular issue under the control of Mark Schoesler, GOP Majority Leader.

The very first day they took control of the Senate, he should have held a press conference, thanked the Supreme Court for their consideration, and then told them to drop dead.

But no.  And now Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers is in charge of placating these weasels, handing over legislative authority to the Court. wasting billions of our money to try and keep them happy when NONE of that is needed.

Does education need more money?

Well, it all depends on the definition of need.  And that is no where to be found in the State Constitution.

So, the matter is debatable.  But it's debatable by the representatives of the people.  And ultimately, if the people don't like the results of the debate, then the people can exercise their ultimate power at the ballot box and replace these representatives until they do like the outcome.

So, the incessant sniveling and whining of the fringe-left nutjobs at the Lazy C over this issue might make them feel better, but has zero basis in legal fact.

The Supreme Court of this state can no more require the legislature to legislate than the legislature can require the Supreme Court to exercise their judicial function.

What the legislature CAN do... and should do... is cut the size of the Supreme Court back to five, and shift those savings immediately to the SPI.

The constitutional requirement for the Supreme Court is 5, there's no need for 9.

And for those who believe their is, I would point to California, which has roughly 5 times our population... but only 7 supreme court justices.

Meanwhile, every time the clowns at the Lazy C demand the arrest of legislators for ANYthing, they look more like blithering idiots.

The only question here is what will the legislature do about it?

Because every time they give an inch, they're ceding their authority to these clowns.  And every time they do something like that, they're merely encouraging those fringe-left morons to expand their authority while the legislature's authority retracts.

And if the legislature goes along with this program, it's a matter of time until the Court begins to make demands in other areas as they make up, literally, out of whole cloth, all of the other ways they can control this state's government since clearly, the legislature lacks the balls to do anything about it... except to cave.


Tuesday, July 28, 2015

C.S. Lewis weighs in on Sen. Ann Rivers' gas tax/tab fee increase vote.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ...To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
This is precisely what I've been saying, although much less artfully.

Sen. Rivers tells us:
“It was a gut-wrenching decision, but when I turned it into a flat-out business decision and took my emotion out of it, it was definitely what I had to do,’’ Rivers said. “They had the votes without me. If people in my district are going to pay real dollars, they are going to get real projects and real reforms.’’
Actually, what she "had" to do... first and foremost... was to keep her word.  Now that we know she values it so little, the default position must be to disbelieve everything she says.

Because when she ran and made those pledges, I believed her.

How wrong I was.

With her vote, which violated her election pledge to vote against a gas tax increase and/or a tab fee increase, she is "tormenting us for our own good."

And that's the crux of the matter.

Let me reiterate:  had Rivers' vote come at the cost of putting this theft to the ballot so that those of us paying for it had the final say, this would be a completely different discussion.  But with her "yes" vote, she was clearly acquiescing to her fellow GOP senators who did not want us to have a say, and with her yes vote she was also agreeing with the emergency clause in the bill, a typically leftist play... that makes it difficult to impossible to gather the needed signatures in time to stop this rape.

 I will never support any politician who views their word to be worth so little.  If the people are to be "tormented," it must be done by our own hands at the ballot box, and not be having a fiscal shiv rammed into our wallets by those who should know better... but who most apparently do not.

The problem is that once you start down that road where you can be.... "bought," or "got to," or "threatened" into breaking your word to those who elected you...

...there's simply no end to it.  And the only thing we'll know for sure is that it will happen again... and again... and again.

And it will cost her nothing.

Boldt guaranteed to lose again: Mains running his campaign

As I suspected for some time now, Jim Mains is going to lose another campaign for Marc Boldt.

The messenger, if not the author of the lie that I was opposing Boldt, my own brother-in-law, for election to anything because David Madore was paying me, Mains did an abysmal job running Boldt's last disaster, much like he ran Shane Gardner's abortion of a campaign and others foolish enough to hire him or his company to do anything besides take out the trash.

Thanks to Mains, Boldt is effectively broke and has nothing left that can make any difference in the foregone outcome of his abysmal effort.

Instead of hiring those morons, that's money better spent on targeted mailings or even robo calls (Marc's good at that.  Remember the one he did for that idiotic CTran tax increase?) that simply isn't there.

But Mains gets paid.

Sheesh.

When you see it...

Sunday, July 26, 2015

The irony of Jayne's primary-delegate selection idiocy.

Frankly, I don't give a damn what the Secretary of State wants.  She's making the rounds babbling about the patterns on the china while the Titanic is taking on water.

The legislature, which apparently has almost $12 million of our dollars to waste, chose to waste them on some sort of primary that no one cares about or pays attention to.

Of course, illegal aliens can still vote in this state because we ram voter registration down their throats while they're getting illegal drivers licenses this illegal alien destination resort provides them, all while we skip requiring proof of citizenship or even identity to give them the privilege that hundreds of thousands died to preserve to US, the American citizen, that formerly most precious right.

That's not the irony in all of this, of course: the irony is that an organization with a history of pissing all over the will of the people of this county would remotely concern themselves with how any organization that is none of their business would conduct themselves.

How many years did the democratian stand against the people on the gawd-awful CRC/Loot Rail Scam?  How many years did they deride the charter movement until they could figure out a way to take it over... and then support a charter with requirements impossible to meet when it comes to changing it?

How many years did they cheer-lead against the will of the people when it came to the Pollard Hilton that's wasted $27 million of our tax dollars as we continue to subsidize this flea-bag hotel that's never come within shouting distance of profitability?

Where did the rag push for a vote on the ballpark scam?  No where.  ANd the whole thing blew to pieces as a result.

See, I can call this the Obama problem.

Obama has lied to the American people literally hundreds of times.  Now, he's bending us over and allowing Iran to rape us, and he is, once again, promising us the moon plus two dollars if we'd just believe him.

Sorry, clown... but if you told me it was daylight out, I'd have to look for myself.

So now, all of a sudden, the rag is concerned with how the parties chose THEIR delegates.  After decades of crapping on what the people want?

Well, sorry clown... but if you told me it was daylight out, I'd have to look for myself.

Freedom is not free... particularly for those who never served.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

In politics, when is a lie... a lie?

I'm rather plain spoken.  I typically mean what I say when it comes to my conclusions.

The words are typically straight-forward and don't require a great deal of parsing.

For me, for example, a lie is a lie.  A lie is saying something that you know to not be true, typically to either gain an advantage or to avoid responsibility.

In politics, that also includes the art of convincing people to vote for you... or your cause... or your project... by giving them false information... or making promises that you do not keep.

Locally, we have a large number of people in elective office who come under the "liar" sobriquet.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt will always be known for lying to get elected.  His lie, which was obvious to me from the start, was that he did not support tolls on the CRC/Loot Rail scam when, of course, he did.

The Liar used that lie as a wedge issue to separate him from his opponent at that time in the mayoral race, "No Choice" Royce Pollard.  I called him on it for months, supporting Pollard in the general that year, because even though Pollard is/was a lowlife CRC/Loot Rail scumbag, he made no bones about it and Leavitt certainly did.

That makes Leavitt a liar.

Scott Weber is a liar.  A Brent Boger protege', Weber first ran for county clerk on the premise that he would fight to eliminate his office as an elected position.  I supported that, as long as he followed through and actually made a sincere effort to accomplish that... which he, of course, did not.

That makes Weber a liar.

Marc Boldt looked me in the eye in February of 2010 during the local GOP convention and promised me he would hold an up-or-down advisory vote on the CRC/Loot Rail scam, county wide.

Not only did he fail to hold that vote, he also told me it was because such a vote was, he was told, "unconstitutional."  Those are two obvious lies.  (Don't misunderstand me; he may well have been TOLD that... but if he was, he did nothing to verify it, and the reality is clear that the information in question was arguably false, given the number and type of advisory votes held in this county, county-wide.)

That makes Boldt a liar.

And, of course, we have my State Senator, Ann Rivers.

As is documented in various places in this blog, as a part of her platform in running for election to the senate, she wrote thus:


Pretty straight forward.  Pretty unambiguous.  No disclaimers included.

Hard not to understand.

Vote for me and I will NOT vote for an increase in the gas tax.  (Support = vote yes)

Vote for me and I will NOT vote for an increase in tab fees.  (Support = vote yes)

Except, of course, having made that pledge, she has proceeded to shatter it, not only voting for both a huge gas tax increase (the largest in this state's history) but ALSO increases in tab fees.

After all, the people of this state DID vote to keep tab fees at $30.... right?

Well, that appears to be a "lie" to me.

When you say that you are NOT going to do something and you go ahead and do it... and you've said that, say, as a condition of employment, or in this case, as a condition for election... and later, when it suits you, you go ahead and do that which you've pledged NOT to do... what do you call it?

Well,  Vancouver Deputy City Attorney And Washougal City Councilman Brent Boger tells me that is NOT a lie:  (From Lew Waters' Blog:)
  1. It was either Winston Churchill or John Maynard Keynes who said, “when the facts change, my opinion changes. What do you do sir?” Facts have changed: we have a governor who makes Christine Gregoire look like Laurleen Wallace and he proposes to impose cap and trade and carbon fuel standards by administrative fiat. The package prevents him from doing that is an example of how the package deals with a new fact. I don’t know where the idea comes from that a political officeholder can’t change their mind and can never compromise and if they do, they’re liars. I’m reminded of an event from Ronald Reagan’s first years as Governor of California. Reagan had fought against state withholding taxes. He argued that “taxes should hurt,” that withholding softened the blow, making it easier for politicians to spend more. He said: “My feet are set in concrete on this issue,”. When the state faced a serious cash-flow problem in 1971, he reversed himself and told reporters: “The sound you hear is concrete breaking up around my feet.” Was Reagan lying? What he did is not any different than what Rivers did. You frequently call people liars apparently for shock value, to offend, to entice or maybe its just anger. Whatever. I don’t think it is correct.
Much of what Brent wrote here is nonsense, done to provide cover for a close friend.  And I get that. Until the cardinal rule of honesty was broken, I was a friend as well.

But Brent is, of course, mistaken.

When Sen. Rivers made this pledge, it was clear that Gregoire was going to be gone.  She had long since announced that she was not going to run for reelection.

The pledge itself also failed to come with any disclaimer of any kind, let alone a "Facts have changed: we have a governor who makes Christine Gregoire look like Laurleen Wallace and he proposes to impose cap and trade and carbon fuel standards by administrative fiat." disclaimer.

As I have pointed out on this blog repeatedly, that is nonsense.  It's nonsense that Inslee would cut his own political throat (which I have yet to discover how he can do what no other governor in the history of this state has done: arbitrarily impose a tax increase without legislative approval) by "imposing" such a tax and it's nonsense that even if he were so inclined to do so, the transportation package would in any way keep him from accomplishing that.

Its nonsense that this happened because Inslee was elected.  In the end, Rivers' failure to include some sort of disclaimer... an "except" or "unless" clause... was a deliberate oversight.  Because imagine what would have happened if, having been asked during the campaign of, say, 2010 in the primary, "oh, yeah, by the way, can you foresee any circumstance where a campaign promise from you would be broken?" what the outcome would have been if she had said, "Sure!  If Inslee gets elected, all bets are off!"

You know... I know... and she knows... it would be Senator Jon Russell and she would have been a political footnote, ousted in the primary.

I appreciate the historical lesson from Reagan.  But the main difference here, besides the obvious, is that Reagan acknowledged he lied.  In shilling her betrayal of the voters of this district, Rivers has yet to even mention her campaign pledge violation that I can see.  And now, because of me, it's far too late for that dodge.

Obviously, Reagan was proud of what he'd done.  But another difference between Reagan and Rivers is this: We had no "serious cash flow problem" to address... particularly one that had to be addressed in this manner... in a way where the voters were cut out of the loop... deliberately... because, God forbid, we might just say "no."

"Was Reagan lying?"

Of course.  Is that even a question?

It doesn't matter how you dress up a lie... it's still a lie.  And using this kind of "reasoning" just goes to reinforce that in the political realm, it's perfectly OK, for ANY politician to say ANYTHING to get elected, because there's a certain element out there which can simply excuse absolutely anything when self-interests... or friendship... is involved.  If what Rivers did is excusable because of a "changing circumstance" that in reality, NEVER changed... then anything that any of your sort does is perfectly OK because of a self-justifying "changing circumstance."

History is replete with tyrants who justified their tyranny because of "clanging circumstance."  The "changing circumstance" dodge carries no more weight with me then "befehl ist befehl" at Nuremberg... but it was used as cover for the acts of those who believed themselves to be untouchable.

Precisely like it is for Boger covering Rivers.

So, the issue isn't that Rivers lied, or told a falsehood... or broke a pledge used to get elected.  That's stipulated.  There's no question, no doubt about it.  Boger and his ilk want to engage in extenuation and mitigation as to the "why" of it.

In Boger's world, it's the terminology at issue... the calling it something besides a lie that would make him more comfortable.
What he (Reagan) did is not any different than what Rivers did. You frequently call people liars apparently for shock value, to offend, to entice or maybe its just anger. Whatever. I don’t think it is correct.
Well, you wouldn't, Brent.  For if you did, then you'd have to react in a completely different way.

But the fact of that matter is that while you give friends like Weber and Rivers a pass... as a result of your lack of desire to internalize what they've done here... since they are, after all, your friends, and therefore appear to be as pure as the driven snow to you, evil triumphs while good men do nothing.

Reagan lied.  Leavitt Lied.  Weber lied.  Boldt lied.  And so did Rivers.

That you find the motives or the impacts of their lies acceptable somehow may either be your personal situational ethics or those of your profession.

But that doesn't change it.

As a politician, you naturally want the "flexibility" to say or do anything without being held accountable for it as long as you can remain in office and keep being re-elected.

That you don't believe the truth to be correct is utterly meaningless.

For the rest of the world, when a politician or anyone else makes a promise to achieve an aim, like, for example, "Read my lips: no new taxes," and then proceeds to act like they never uttered those words... well, we know how that ended.  (Odd, Brent, that you cherry-picked Reagan and forgot all about Bush 1.)

The simplest way for me to refer to you or anyone else as a liar is to, well, lie.  If you don't, then I don't have a problem with anyone on that score.

But to emulate the Gruber Gambit and believe that the voters are stupid?

I, therefore, leave it up to the reader:  when is a lie a lie?  And when is that lie compounded by other lies (Inslee can arbitrarily impose a tax without the legislature) and "we added that emergency clause and kept a referendum clause out because we HAD too..." (Which is a lie that sets up most of the other lies) and not because we were terrified or didn't want to go through the hassle (aka, too lazy) to convince you voters these wastes of billions were a great idea.

It's simple, really.  I have been ridiculed by some, ignored by some, insulted by some... and all because I am going after an increasingly sacred political cow for breaking her word.

But in the end, *I* didn't publish those words concerning the gas tax or tab fees; and to the best of my knowledge, no one had a gun aimed at her head to force her to publish them either.

That was her choice.  And the situational ethics that teaches us we can not trust anything anyone promises in the political realm... which obviously now also means you, Brent... is, quite frankly, a sickening betrayal.

And why you leap to Rivers' defense is your issue.  That you do it without examining the issue beyond what you've done... well, whatever.

I don't think it is correct.

Congrats to the Hillsboro Hops: First Half Champs, guaranteed Division Playoff spot!


My lovely wife and I have become big time Hillsboro Hops supporters... Last year's Northwest League Champions are now well-positioned to repeat by winning the first half Championship.

Hillsboro's team, which with a little competence and smarter politics, could easily have been the Vancouver Bears, won the league championship last year in the second year of existence... and now, with an effectively completely new team and staff (Only 5 players remain from last year's team and the coaching staff is almost all new, with the rest mostly promoted up into the Diamondback organization) are positioned to repeat.

Well done to this fine organization, and looking forward to attending many more games in the second half!


With Friday night's win in Boise, the Hops claim the Northwest League South Division First Half Championship and are on their way to the playoffs!

Baseball in it's purest form.  Great plays, terrible plays, astounding plays and everything in between as these kids play their hearts out.

Well done!

Friday, July 24, 2015

Memo to the GOP:

It certainly describes where I'm at with the GOP at every level.

In everything from the GOP betrayal throughout Congress to the betrayal  of the state GOP Senate on the gas tax/tab fee scam, it's clear that it doesn't make any difference who's running the show.

Not as much of a Cruz guy as I once was, but this sums it up neatly:


So, the GOP controls Congress. It's made zero difference, you understand...

I've been saying all along that working our collective asses off to put the GOP in charge of Congress would make no real difference given the RINO infestation.

Looks like I'm not the only one.

Image result for The Hill


Cruz accuses McConnell of lying


11.2K473
472

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a blistering floor speech Friday accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) of lying to him over a deal to vote on reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.
 
"Today is a sad day for this institution," said Cruz, who is running for president. "What we just witnessed this morning is profoundly disappointing." 
 
 
On the floor, Cruz said McConnell in a private conversation denied to him that there was such a deal.
 
"The majority leader was visibly angry with me that I would ask him such a question," Cruz said. "The majority looked at me and said 'there is no deal, there is no deal, there is no deal.'" 
 
The Texas Republican said his staff at the time told him that McConnell is "lying to you," but Cruz suggested that he took the Republican leader at his word. 
 
"What I told my staff that afternoon, I said, well I don't know if that's the case or not. But I don't see how when the majority leader looks me in the eyes and makes an explicit promise," he added. "I don't see how I cannot take him at his word." 
 
Cruz later said that McConnell's move to allow the Ex-Im vote shows that he does not always mean what he says. 
 
"Well, we now know that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment that he is willing to say things that he knows are false," the Texas Republican added, arguing it could have ramifications down the road.
 
"That has consequences for how this body operates," he said. "If you or I cannot trust what the majority leader tells us, that will have consequences on other legislation, as well as on how this institution operates." 
 
Cruz also ripped McConnell for using a procedural maneuver to prevent other amendments from being offered to the highway bill. That's the vehicle that will be used for the Ex-Im vote. 
 
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) frequently "filled the tree" to prevent amendments when Democrats had a Senate majority. It was a tactic that McConnell and other Republicans criticized. 
 
In addition to the Ex-Im vote, McConnell also set up a vote on repealing ObamaCare. That move was seen as an appeasement to conservatives upset over Ex-Im, but the vote is likely to fail and it did not calm Cruz.
 
"I agree with Senator Reid when he said the ObamaCare amendment is a cynical amendment. Of course it is. It is empty showmanship," he added.

Guess Inslee didn't hear Sen. Rivers part of the script on why she ignored her campaign promises:

From the Reflector article:
Rivers also went on to explain that the bill’s sponsors agreed to a tradeoff to get Republicans like herself on board that eliminated a push for Low Carbon Fuel Standards in the transportation package that would have pushed the gas tax increase to more than $1 a gallon. There’s also provisions that prevent Gov. Jay Inslee from adding the standards after the fact. 
“When I explain the Low Carbon Fuel Standards Provision, everyone tells me, ‘I get it. You did the right thing,’’’ Rivers said.
Well, since I believe it was never going to happen, how does that impact Rivers' conclusion?

But let's take it a step further:  The Governor doesn't seem to agree with Rivers' statement, either:

Image result for the seattle times

Inslee, don’t derail hard-won transportation deal 
 
Gov. Jay Inslee should hold to the political deal necessary to get a $16.2 billion transportation package, and not unilaterally impose a low-carbon fuel standard.
By The Seattle Times
Seattle Times illustration
Seattle Times illustration
LAST week, Gov. Jay Inslee signed a $16.2 billion transportation-investment package that had been hammered out over two years of grueling negotiations with lawmakers. It is a very good, well-balanced deal for Washington state. It includes funding to finish the Highway 520 bridge and other megaprojects, and provides transit grants. It is well worth the 11.9-cent-per-gallon gas-tax increase. 
Within days, however, Inslee began floating political trial balloons for a move that could potentially undermine this deal and wipe away more than $1.1 billion in funding for non-highway, transit and biking projects, according to the Puget Sound Regional Council.
What Inslee is considering doing would be a mistake for several reasons. 
At issue is what Inslee calls the “poison pill” provision in the transportation package. It limits the governor’s executive power to impose a low-carbon fuel standard, which would mandate a higher portion of biofuel in gasoline to reduce carbon emissions. According to analysis released by the governor’s staff, it could raise gas prices by 12 cents a gallon over the decade, but alternative analyses suggest the increase could be much more. Remember, this would be on top of the 11.9-cent increase to fund the package. 
As part of those tough negotiations among lawmakers, the Republican majority in the state Senate — concerned about the double whammy on citizens — demanded a provision that would divert non-highway project investments into a road-building account if Inslee imposes the low-carbon fuel standard before 2023.

Inslee signed the package recognizing that the state needs a better transportation system. It was the right decision.  
"Inslee should instead hew to the deal and work in the next legislative session to advance his carbon-reduction agenda.”
Those multimodal investments are significant. They include $164 million in grants for public transit, $112 million for rail projects, $102 million to make walking and biking routes safer, and funding for specific non-highway projects, such as a pedestrian bridge over Interstate 5 at Northgate. 
Inslee’s office suggests that if he does impose the low-carbon fuel standard, the transit-bike-pedestrian money eventually could be clawed back. That is a political fantasy, based on history of the negotiations. More likely, Inslee would be handing the road-building interests a big pot of money. Advocates for transit and bike programs are howling, rightly. 
Inslee should instead hew to the deal and work in the next legislative session to advance his carbon-reduction agenda. He would retain the right to tell voters next year, when he likely will run for re-election, that he helped broker the deal and kept Washington moving. 
If he goes ahead with the low-carbon fuel standard, he would undermine the carbon-emission reductions in the transportation package gained by getting people out of their cars. He would make meaningless all the hard-won compromises negotiated by his fellow Democrats. And he would cement the notion that he is more focused on his own climate change agenda than on leading the state. 
Don’t do it, governor. 
Editorial board members are editorial page editor Kate Riley, Frank A. Blethen, Ryan Blethen, Brier Dudley, Mark Higgins, Jonathan Martin, Thanh Tan, Blanca Torres, William K. Blethen (emeritus) and Robert C. Blethen (emeritus).    
Sen. Rivers obviously put a great deal of faith in this part of the cover provided for the GOP Senate's betrayal.

For me, the resulting and only question is this:

If Inslee does commit this political hari-kiri,,, if he falls on his sword in the time-honored tradition of seppuku...

How long will it take her to resign?