Saturday, June 30, 2012

The Columbian snivels over striking out on the ballpark scam.

Forgotten long since, two short years ago, this rag threw a fit over the very idea that taxpayer dollars should be used to pay for a millionaire's baseball facility:
But back to luring the baseball team over to this side of the river. That would require a stadium with at least 8,000 seats, which would cost about $40 million. As we’ve editorialized before, there appears to be no way any of that money could — or even should — be provided by taxpayers. That hurdle hasn’t discouraged Leavitt, though. “There’s still a lot of interest in bringing Beavers baseball or Triple-A baseball to Clark County. Private interests are working on a financing plan,” he said. To which we respond: Great! Work away! Which is a nice way of saying don’t come begging to cash-strapped city or county governments.
There's never been an explanation as to what caused the rag to flip  from that position to this:.
So, along comes Brancaccio, who blabs about how unacceptable Stuart's "dead horse" plan is.  He goes on to comment below the article:  
Lou Brancaccio Top Commenter University of Florida 
When you read the entire editorial Friday you will see we still favor baseball coming here and we still support an entertainment tax to make that happen. What we strongly oppose is this new idea of giving the money to the cities and then cutting them off after five years. Many politicians have trouble stopping spending once they start.
Yeah, Lou.  Like on the CRC, you mean?

They went bat-shit crazy over the idea of a barely-above amateur baseball team moving here, squarely dropping the turd of almost complete tax-payer financing through the moronic concept of charging EVERYONE going to ANY "entertainment" venue a tax... a tax, in  most cases, LARGER THEN THE TAX THAT WOULD BE PAID BY THOSE EITHER USING, OR ACTUALLY ATTENDING, AN EVENT OR GAME AT THE BALLPARK IN QUESTION... paid for by hundreds of thousands who would never set foot in such a facility... and all without asking us or putting this to a vote.

Amazing how much they fear the will of the people.  If they could have made a case, just think... the fish-wrapper wouldn't have been spewing their crocodile tears this morning.

Opposition was massive... and instant.  And, after an all-too-long, drawn out death scene, it finally died... only to (thankfully) be resurrected in Hillsboro, who, conveniently unmentioned by the democratian, will get this thing built WITHOUT raising taxes and WITHOUT slapping a 5% ticket tax on tickets not only in Hillsboro, but throughout the entirety of Washington County... which was the bizarre effort being made here.

Hillsboro seems to be blessed with much more visionary and generally more intelligent elected leadership, because the question the rag SHOULD be asking, but will never ask, is this:  Why couldn't those in charge around here put a deal together like this?

How is it that Hillsboro is getting 50% more seats in a stadium (4500 versus 3000, which was the original rip off planhere) for $7 to $10 million LESS then we were?

These are obvious questions.  And they have not been asked... because, like so many other questions that need to be asked that aren't (So, Mr. Jacks, in your alcohol-fueled state as a legislator, did you actually molest female staff in Olympia?  So, Commissioners/Mayor/city councilmen/women, are you aware that the entire CRC is a scam designed by special interests in Portland as a sop to get you hicks to buy into the CRC, and there's nothing wrong with the bridge we have now?) this newspaper would never DREAM of getting us all the facts when the favored special interests would be the ones to suffer because of it.

 No, instead, we get garbage like this:
Jeers: To the lost opportunity to bring a minor-league professional baseball team to Clark County. This week the city of Hillsboro, Ore., inked a deal with the Yakima Bears, the same team that tried hard to relocate to a spot on the Clark College campus. As part of the deal, Hillsboro will sell bonds to finance a new stadium estimated to cost $13 million to $15 million. The various proposals aired in Clark County to build a stadium and bring the Bears to town all had something for everyone to criticize. But in the end, they’ll be playing ball in Hillsboro and we’ll be stuck with the perpetually lackluster Seattle Mariners on TV.
So, here's our choices: perpetually lackluster, barely-above amateur baseball in Hillsboro, or the perpetually lackluster Seattle Mariners on TV?

To me, the question is easy: to area taxpayers, which one is/was cheaper?

I'm thrilled to watch the Mariners lose on cable when I'm not paying for it by going to a movie.


Friday, June 29, 2012

Is there a lawyer in the house? Did yesterday's rulling invalidate all of Obamacare?

See, it seems that this tax originated in the Senate... and we all know that ALL TAX BILLS MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE.

Right?  And that's not what happened here.  Is it?

Art 1, Sec 7 US Constitution

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The reporter indicates that the House voted on the Senate bill, pulled from reconciliation, they "deemed" it "passed," so if the health care law is a tax (and the Supreme Court says it IS a tax) then it was not lawfully passed... hence, invalid.

Just sayin'.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Herrera sells us out.

As I have been saying repeatedly and all along, Jaime Herrera wants the I-5 bridge replaced; she wants light rail, and she wants to screw us with tolls for the rest of HER life.

All that garbage a few months back when the gutless wonder was getting her ass kicked in by Leavitt?

As I said at the time, it was all for show.  She wants to make us THINK she's fighting for us... that she cares... when all she cares about is herself.

And now, she's selling us out... not even a vote requirement for her 30 pieces of silver.

And I, for one, am sick of it.
The first-term Republican representative from Camas pointed out that, under the compromise bill, $500 million would be reauthorized for a grant program that could help finance the Columbia River Crossing project. The previous transportation bill had only allowed $356 million for the grant program, which doles out money based on a project's national and regional significance.

"From day one, I have said that the federal government must be prepared to pay its fair share of replacing the (Interstate 5) bridge," she said.
Hey, Herrera... here's a clue, you simple idiot: The fed's share for this fiasco is ALL of it.

God save us from cowards and sellouts in Congress.

Now EVERYONE can be "Audie Murphy." Supreme Court strikes down "The Stolen Valor Act."

So, having taken leave of their senses on Obamacare, the USSC overturns The Stolen Valor Act.

Well, boys and girls, any of you ever had a hankerin' to be war heroes... particularly without going through the mundane process of actually GOING to war?

Or how about you in the military with cook and bottle washer MOS's?  Tired of just struttin' your stuff with a few, mundane, "I was there" ribbons?

Well, hell.  YOU TOO can now be a WAR HERO!

That's right, if you act now, you can become the first girl Ranger/Spook-SF type.  You can get a CIB with a BUNCH of stars on it.  Get your own Silver Stars with a BUNCH of oak leaf clusters... A set of master jump wings... A diver qual badge... a halo badge, a bunch of tabs, etc, etc.

Impress the girls and your drinking buddies.  Apply for benefits exclusive to those combat veterans... because it's all... now.... LEGAL.

Connecticutt US Senator Richard Blumenthal, who somehow morphed from never setting foot in Vietnam to having actually served there, will be thrilled.

Impacts of the Obamacare decision on the governor's race.

As regular readers know, I'm a Hadian supporter.  But that's doesn't keep me from speculation on the impacts of the race between the increasingly muddled front runners, Jay Inslee and RINO Rob McKenna.

As I've stated previously, I oppose McKenna and will not be voting for him because he and Inslee are exactly the same on the issues that matter to me.  This lack of separation and McKenna's efforts to outdemocrat the democrats, his bizarre instance that what a real governor, in this case, Gov. Scott Walker was doing in Wisconsin amounted to "terrorism," his kowtowing to the Tribes as they rape our economy with their untaxed casinos; his support of the Cowlitz megacasino?  Well, that just did it for me.

Inslee is a fringe-lefter.  So, unfortunately, is RINO Rob, but that's neither here nor there.  Inslee is now in a position of "I told you so," and he'd be a fool not to use that to beat the AG over the head with it like a club.  After all, isn't the Attorney General supposed to be the expert?

With this decision and with the weaknesses of McKenna becoming increasingly clear, I am less and less certain that McKenna can prevail here.  Although RINO Rob has done as much as he can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (It's NEVER a good idea to work so hard to become your opponent: after all, why vote for the fake when you can have the real thing?  Just look at Tim Leavitt's fake no-tolls stance as an example.) it's still too close to call... for now.

But it's hard not to foresee a pop for Inslee over this.  After all, legally, Inslee was right... and McKenna was wrong.

(Full disclosure: I believed McKenna to be right as well.  But no one that I've heard of or seen foresaw this outcome... who knew that forcing someone to but a product from the private sector was a tax, or that Roberts would go along with such pap?)

Well, gee... that was unexpected. But didn't Obama tell us it WASN'T a tax?

There were several unexpected elements in today's SC decision, not the least of which was the majority's claim that the mandate survives as a tax.  After all, weren't we assured at the time that it WASN'T a tax?

Sep 20, 2009 9:00am


Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax

ht obama this week 090920 main Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax
President Obama signaled in our interview that he was prepared to address some of the concerns raised by key Senator Jay Rockefeller, who called the Baucus bill a “big middle class tax increase” this week.
That means he’ll support more subsidies for middle class families.
But in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax.
Here it is:
STEPHANOPOULOS:  You were against the individual mandate…
OBAMA:  Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS:  …during the campaign.  Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA:  Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening.  You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care.  Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that.  That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances.  And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
STEPHANOPOULOS:  That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
OBAMA:  No.  That’s not true, George.  The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.  What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS:  But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA:  No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.  Any…
OBAMA:  What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
STEPHANOPOULOS:  I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA:  George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.  Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.  I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS:  Well, no, but…
OBAMA:  …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS:  I wanted to check for myself.  But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA:  My critics say everything is a tax increase.  My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy.  You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS:  But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA:  I absolutely reject that notion.

- George Stephanopoulos

And, of course, if it is a tax, then that means that tens of millions will be exempted from patying it due to their income constraints, much like they're already exempted from paying income tax... and that means the burden for paying THEIR tax will fall on us.

On the surface, today was a good day for the left.  They'll be out spiking the football, following in the Obamaian pattern of post bin Ladin giddiness... but the question remains: did Obama win the election today?

Or did he lose it worse then he otherwise would have?  And what will the fallout be for RINO Rob McKenna, who briefly showed testicular fortitude in swimming up against the leftist stream and joining the law suit that caused such howls of consternation and demands he withdraw from the suit, even sparking suits to demand he leave the Obamacare suit.  What about that?

Politics is also a game of expectations.  The president made various promises as part of his scam to get this passed.  But as the Belle of Botox so famously told us, they had to get the bill passed to find out what was in it.

So, on one hand, the Supreme Court tells us this is a tax.  It's true, legislatively speaking, because they say it is, but if true, then they've broadened the definition by several miles.

The first definition that came up when I googled it was from


 [taks]  Show IPA
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes,property, sales, etc.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.

I suppose it's within their purview to tell us that people are, in fact property, as far as that goes.  Does that make it so?

The definition infers that the GOVERMENT provides the "specific facilities or services," but in this case, the government is demanding that the people purchase specific products from private entities that meet their satisfaction.  Under the Supreme Court's reasoning, it appears to me that the government may now require everyone to buy anything from the private sector that they deem required... from this insurance scam to kumquats... if the majority's justification is to be believed.

And on the other hand, you've got Obama telling us that it is NOT a tax.

And Roberts joining with the leftist majority?

Who'da thunk it?

Here's what I know:  I am not, and I will not, EVER paying the mandate or any of the fines related to it.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Because, after all, in prison, isn't health care provided... for free?

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Paulbots running Pete Silliman in the 18th?

In another colossal waste of time, the local Paulbots are planning on running a guy named Pete Silliman as a write-in against Brandon Vick.

While I won't be supporting Vick in the 18th, Silliman's presence would guarantee my vote for Vick.

Oddly, that news has been vacuumed off the web... just not quickly enough.  Wonder why?

Whoops... OK, the announcement is up, now, although you would think that someone as gifted as this would first, do his own announcement, and second, write it himself.

Early endorsements (Legislative and local)

Legislature:  Republican.

Frankly, I don't care who the democrats run.  Republican control of at least one House is vital... and voting Republican is the way to make that happen.

Ultimately, the democrats will win in the 49th and lose everywhere else in Clark County.

County Commission: Mielke.

Joe Tanner is mounting a strong challenge but hasn't made the argument.  With two other democrats on the commission shilling for the bridge, light rail and tolls, Mielke has done what he's said he would do when he ran last time.  A strong voice against the rip off of the ballpark, Mielke came out swinging against the "path to nowhere" that the morons at the Columbian crucified him for, stupidly claiming it was "free money"... until the numbers came out and the horrific overruns came to light.

Mielke hasn't been perfect.  But to date, Tanner has failed to make a compelling argument that he would have done anything differently, or how he would be more effective in killing the CRC.  In short, he's provided no reason to replace Tom.

County Commission: Write in.

(Full disclosure: Marc Boldt is my brother-in-law and I worked for him as his Legislative Assistant for 6 years in the Washington State House of Representatives.)

I cannot support Marc Boldt.  The GOP does not support Boldt.  He has long since stopped voting for the people and started voting for the downtown special interests.  He's done nothing to stop the CRC, even lying to me about it.  He's voted for an ordinance to confiscate our guns in the event of an emergency, and blamed the legislature for giving him the authority.  He allowed the ballpark scam to run for months when he should have killed it immediately, although he did, finally, after months of agonizing, vote no.  He violated ethics laws by voting on contracts for a company his wife, my sister-in-law, voted worked for.  He votes with Steve Stuart every chance he gets, and ignores Tom Mielke. 

Not only "no," but hell no.

I cannot support David Madore.  He has surrounded himself with well-meaning amateurs and lower level slime.  He knows nothing about politics and apparently lacks the will to learn.  While he has the right position on tolls, I'm beginning to hear that he is supporting the waste of billions on the unneeded bridge replacement.

He recently hired Gary Wiram, who ran Jon Russell's disastrous campaign for Congress, volunteered for his fullback state representative campaign while spewing lies against now Senator Ann Rivers (R-18).

Wiram, Russell and that ilk are those Madore surrounds himself with.  And I cannot support someone in government who can govern ME who will do that.

Campbell is a buffoon... and the democrat?  Well, I hear some fascinating things about him and why he's running.

I, personally, will be writing in my puppy's name, Daisy.

PUD Commissioner: Jim West.

West is the only one who bothered to show up for the Central Committee meeting a few days ago.

If we're not important enough to talk to, then forget you.

Early endorsements (Federal and State)

OK, here it is.

President:   Write in.

I haven't decided who to write in, but none of those on the ballot do a thing for me... it's just various shades of "bad."  While Romney is the best of that lot compared to Obama or, God forbid, that total whack job Paul, the block of moron voters in Washington State will still dutifully vote for the destruction of this country and stick with that simple idiot, my-Spaniel-could-do-a-better-job moron in the White House now.

Romney appears to be the winner nationwide, but the Empty Suit is likely to take Washington State.

US Senate:  Baumgartner

No question.  Baumgartner, a Republican state senator, has a background that the do-nothing Cantwell can only dream of.

Governor: Hadian.

I don't know much about him, but I don't need to.  He's getting my vote because democrat (Inslee) and democrat-light (McKenna) are far too much alike to even begin to hope for a different outcome if either were to be elected.

Inslee, never the brightest bulb on the tree, is a democrat hack.  McKenna, who stupidly (and publicly) refereed to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walkers innovative techniques and bills in taking the public employee unions to heel as "terrorism" also supports the Cowlitz megacasino scam, and has refused to join Clark County's lawsuit against the efforts to screw this county.

Neither should be elected to dog catcher.

Hadrian appears to be a conservative Republican with a story worthy of a made-for-TV movie.  And when you're the only serious conservative running, the choice is obvious.

Lt. Governor:  Anderson

The choices include two typically Puget Sound democrats, although one calls himself a Republican, but like Reagan Dunn, he's engaged in the typically political embrace of gay marriage scamery.

Brad Owen used to be one of my two guaranteed democrat votes (Brian Sontag the other, for State Auditor)... until he went nuts and hired a buddy of his from the Leg to give him a job... and jacked his own budget up 40% or so in one year... paying that guy, who is now, coincidentally, I'm sure, a state senator from the 19th, more money then his own Chief of Staff... which resulted in huge, bow-wave pay raises for everyone ELSE in that office... and who failed to even respond when I emailed his office... twice... to ask about it, although the slimeball lackey in question, now State Senator Brian Hatfield, did wrongfully point out to Owen that I was "that fired Senate Aid who had hacked email accounts."

I COULD have been Genghis Khan, and Owen still had a duty to respond. He never did.

Brad's been there a long time, and it's time for him to go.

Attorney General:  Write in.

It WAS going to be Pidgeon, but since he's gotten himself involved in some Paulbot idiocy, that ain't ever happening.  Reagan Dunn's gay marriage opportunism disqualifies him... so, in this case, Mickey Mouse is going to get a hard look from me.

State Auditor: Write in.

Fringe-left whack job Craig Pridemore wants a big pay check.  Any big pay check will do, so he made an abysmal run for Congress last cycle that even I knew was going to be a flop, and he's making an equally abysmal run this year.

He has zero experience, zero accounting background, and enough political baggage to fill up a Samsonite factory.

His fellow fringer/union types have lined up behind him... and all of that combined means he should be filing for unemployment come January.

Eh.  This is one of those positions where Brian told me himself that partisanship was stupidity.

Secretary of State:  Write in.

Sam Reed was and is arguably the worst Secretary of State we've ever had.  If he endorses someone, it's because he likes them... and if he likes them, then I don't.

The last thing we need is a Reed/McKenna/Evans clone, RINO's all, where no effort to register or proof of identity to vote Was ever pursued.  Reed's tenure was also marked by his effort to give convicted felons the vote before they complete their sentence.

Why do we need more of that?

Public Lands:  Write in.

Goldmark is a fringe left eco-terrorist type who views trees like they're people.  We're not taking nearly enough timber off state lands, and our schools suffer as a result.

Didier is a total whack job, who honestly believes the government should have issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal instead of going to war.

Given the incompetence of how Obama has been running it, the "going to war" part is debatable.  But outfitting pirates to fight it.


Insurance Commissioner: Write in.

Kreidler's slavish devotion to Obamacare isn't anything to recommend him.  But every other candidate has been mailing it in.  They don't care, so why should I?

SPI:  Write in.

Dorn's got the gig, but I've had two kids graduate from high school with high grades on his watch, and they can't tell the time, relatively speaking.

We need standardized testing and teachers need to be held accountable for the abysmal product they produce.  Dorn has accomplished nothing of note in either arena.

Another reason to oppose Finkbeiner: Sam Reed.

So, I open up my email and what to my wandering eyes appear?

Former Senator Majority Leader Bill Finkbeiner, is running to be the next Lieutenant Governor for Washington State and will be in Vancouver.

Please join Secretary of State Sam Reed

Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey and

Arch Miller, owner of the Northwest Culinary Institute and Air Academy

as they host a fundraising reception for Bill.

{When and where redacted}


Exclusive of Finkbeiner's over-the-top support of gay marriage, that Sam Reed, argubaly the worst Secretary of State in our state's history; Arch Miller, who wanted to jack our taxes up through the stratosphere until he lost the levy and his job as a port commissioner... and who's donated to Sen. Don Benton's opponent, Tim Probst, given $1000 to Tom Mielke's opponent, Joe Tanner... support this guy?

I've vote for a democrat first.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Reality is sinking in to the democrats: "Wanna get elected? Stay away from the national convention." Love, Steve Israel.


Did I forget to mention that Steve Israel isn't a nom de plume or cartoon character?

He's Congressman Steve Israel, Chair of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee.

While I don't agree with a 45 state landslide, it's beginning to become an every-day thing that Obama is losing his ability to fix our economy or foreign relations... if he ever HAD that ability... and as that attitude becomes inculcated in the American psyche, it seems more and more likely that Romney wins.

Unreal!… Chairman of DCCC Tells Democrats to Avoid Convention If They Want to Get Elected
The rats aren’t just jumping ship…
The whole d*mn ship is sinking!

(Conservative Views)
This is unbelievable.
The man responsible for getting Democrats elected to Congress just told Democratic candidates to avoid the DNC convention in Charlotte, North Carolina if they want to get elected.
The man responsible for getting Democrats elected to the U.S. Congress this fall has a message for his party’s candidates: Stay away from the Democratic National Convention.
“If they want to win an election, they need to be in their districts,” New York congressman Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the Reuters Washington Summit on Tuesday.
The Democratic convention, to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina, in early September to formally nominate President Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee, is viewed warily by some of the party’s candidates.
The September 3-6 gathering to fete a president whose popularity ratings have hovered around 50 percent is a particularly sensitive issue for Democratic candidates who are in close races in states or districts where Obama trails Republican Mitt Romney in voter surveys.
For such candidates, four days of mingling with Democratic leaders could turn off independent voters before the November 6 election.
“A trip to Charlotte may be interesting,” Israel said, “but why leave your districts?”
Obama’s poll ratings have little to do with his stance, Israel said.
Let me go on record right now. 45 state landslide for Romney.
The SS Hope is listing.

Russell, finally, leaves.

For an extended period of time (several months), Jon Russell had been skipping many of the the city council meetings that he had a duty to attend, since he was an elected Washougal City Councilman.

No longer.

Jon Russell has finally done what he SHOULD have done months ago, and left the city council.

Here's my review of his political tenure:

The Columbian referred to Russell's time on the council as "controversial."

That's much like accurately describing the editors of the Columbian and their editorial page as "leftist."  While correct as a label, it really doesn't come close to a complete description, nor does it lend itself to the flavor of a pattern of immaturity, deceit and dishonesty that marked Russell's campaigns and his use of Washougal as a prop on his way up the political ladder.

I first met Russell after he'd come out here back in '04 to handle the SW Washington area HROC gig... which was his first disaster.  In '04, then Rep. Jim Dunn (R-17) had been given a kind of "persona-non-gratia" status by Republican Leader Rep. Richard DeBolt (R-20) and Russell's marching orders were to defeat him in the primary.

Russell worked the campaign of then candidate, now first term State Representative Paul Harris (R-17) (Third time was the charm) and it looked like Harris was going to win going away until Russell sent out a mailer for Harris that changed everything as it attacked Dunn for his age and his weight among other things... and Harris lost.

Russell also interfaced with the Richard Curtis campaign that I consulted on.  Ultimately, his efforts proved to be equally disastrous and both Curtis and I worked to, and ultimately was successful in, getting any further involvement in our campaign by Russell ended.

For example, Russell's second phone call to me was a request for Pam Brokaw's social security number.

I did not have that number, didn't want it and didn't need it.  I told Russell that we didn't play politics that way and that we were going to win this fair and square, without engaging in tactics that required an opponent's social security number.

Since that time, I've watched Russell locally.  He's engaged in a pattern of political dirty tricks including multiple fake names and handles that enabled him to, typically, attack political opponents, even after his appointment to the Washougal city council, while protecting his true identity.

He made up information about his wife as a "doctor."  He repeatedly lied about his education, making up fake degrees.

Russell, an alleged conservative, worked on the Port of Vancouver levy on the "for" side, advocating for what would have been the biggest tax increase in this area's history.

He steadfastly refused to take responsibility for any of the Stacee Sellers debacle, and had no knowledge over the subsequent disappearance of $100,000 in city funds even though he chaired the city finance committee.

He made up fake facebook identities that leaned toward small, petite blond women (Teacher Judy Banks and Jessica Bowen)  had surrogates engage in personal attacks (One of Jon's minions went so far as to attempt to get me kicked off the board of a charitable organization in Idaho)

His campaigns, efforts to get out of Washougal all, included a disastrous, unsuccessful run at the 3rd District Congressional seat; now, unfortunately, held by Jaime Herrera... and then a run at the open 18th District House seat that had been held by Herrera as she vacated to move up to Congress.

I'm hearing a wide variety of other interesting rumors in the political game concerning candidates in the upcoming election... but don't have quite enough to go to web, yet.  That said, there's an entire blog devoted to Russell's antics, Jon Russell Watch. 

Check it out for more details.

One thing that I appreciate: with Jon Russell's departure to the other side of the country, I can be less concerned about continuing on as a PCO.  Russell was the only reason I wanted the gig... and with him leaving... well, it's going to be interesting.

So, underlying Russell's departure was a sense of relief on the part of many, including me. 

Cross-posted at Jon Russell Watch.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Congrats to State Senator Ann Rivers (R-LaCenter)

A unanimous appointment based on the will of the PCO's and the desire of the others on the list, Cindy Johnson and Liz Pike that Ann get the appointment.

Well done to Ann and Fred.  Ann has and will continue to serve us well..

Commissioners choose Rivers to succeed Zarelli

State Rep. Anne Rivers, flanked by then-Sen. Joseph Zarelli, left, and state Rep. Ed Orcutt, speaks at a town hall meeting in Battle Ground in February. In a unanimous decision Monday, Clark and Cowlitz county commissioners appointed Rivers, R-La Center, as the interim replacement for Zarelli, who resigned from the state Senate on May 31.
State Rep. Anne Rivers, flanked by then-Sen. Joseph Zarelli, left, and state Rep. Ed Orcutt, speaks at a town hall meeting in Battle Ground in February. In a unanimous decision Monday, Clark and Cowlitz county commissioners appointed Rivers, R-La Center, as the interim replacement for Zarelli, who resigned from the state Senate on May 31.

As an aside, Commissioner Steve Stuart came over to me and shook my hand, complimenting me on me on my weight loss.

That was very nice of him... and in the interest of both sides... I thought I'd mention him without beating him up.

Viva HB 1070! Supreme Court Arizona Ruling: Police CAN check your immigration status.

Supreme Court upholds most important part of SB 1070, the Arizona Immigration Law.

Supreme Court upholds citizenship/immigration status check.

It has always been my contention that this aspect of the law is Constitutional.  Checking your right to be her is no different then checking your license.

The RACIST scam is just that.  Those on the far left, running scared that their illegal voter pool will shrink, ALWAYS play the racism card.

I'm hearing the criminal penalties have been struck down, but I'm OK with that, because for me, deportation and confiscation are the things we should be looking at.

Taking it a step more... if the police can require an immigration check... then so can social service agencies, schools and others.

And that's the start, I hope, of getting rid of the rather moronic illegals destination resort concept of "immigration law."

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Attention columnsts! Here are REAL candidate's marching orders

The Column John Laird SHOULD have written.
Next month, Clark County voters will be inundated with messages from the Columbian in support of their leftist, CRC/light rail/toll fetish scamming typically democrat candidates, featuring fringe-left whack jobs John Laird and Loy Brancaccio.  It's not too soon for voters to ignore those two and their self-serving, frequently delusional agenda of a newspaper.

But what about the candidates? Are they fully prepared to ignore those morons, or did the dog eat their homework? Here's a handy, dandy primer for candidates, incumbents as well as newcomers:

• When a columnist rants: don't be a pest, ignore him.  First of all, if one of these clowns COULD make it in politics, they would.  Look up "Michael Heywood" for an example.  Second, the time to point out that a three-strike and you're out rule is not after someone's name is on the ballot... or, like Laird, when your remark is aimed at the many candidates he opposes (Haugen, Petersen, Campbell, et al.)

Ignore the Democratian.  That's right; do not go to their editorial boards.  If you don't slavishly support their fringe-left agenda and you are anything to the right of Mao in a competitive race, you will not be endorsed.  Do not go there and hand them the hammer they'll inevitably use as they engage in their multiple-standard, situational endorsement scam.

•  Ignore columnists: They're old, tired, worn-out hacks who would sell their own children to get their agenda through, all the while hiding behind the non-existent shield of "opinion" vs "news" that keeps them from being held accountable for their words.  "Fair" does not exist in their lexicon, and "will of the voters" is a catch phrase they talk about, but ignore whenever it suits them.

• Understand that partisan politics, which neither Laird nor Brancaccio have ever participated in, does not run like some ethereal, leftist, pie-in-the-sky academic exercise. No amount of turning a blind eye to political reality has ever helped any candidate do anything. Take a look at Barack Obama, who this paper's columnists have NEVER questioned or attacked.

Sign pledges:  A pledge is like a promise.  Most people don't understand you, and have very little to measure your veracity.  Pledges are like the bedrock of your campaign and your actions in governance.  Those who refuse to sign pledges have the freedom to act with a Leavitt-like campaign of lies and deceit, and remember: those anti-pledge morons like Laird are primarily pissed off because they oppose the pledges in question.  You'd think that Laird would understand that hypocrisy isn't a good look... but considering who Laird works for...

Continue the exquisite art of saying "no."  "Yes" has bankrupted the country and buried us in debt for uncounted generations, all the while doing absolutely nothing to "improve the lives of our constituents."  Clowns like Laird have no problem with using our money to spend us into bankruptcy... much like, come to think of it, the Columbian managed to spend itself.  For someone who helped spend a company into bankruptcy to provide advice on how to run ANYTHING is, well, stupid.  In this day and age, government has it's place, and most of us understand that "improving constituents lives" typically means developing a regulatory and tax climate where our constituents can get a job and then keep some of their money... since all quality of life in real terms begins with the ability to support yourself and your family.
Sarcasm seldom works in reporting: And it definitely doesn't work in "opinion" columns for newspapers. Part of this situation is to understand that scum sucking columnists like Laird can dish it out, but they can't take it. Those who can, do. Those who can't, bully.

• Be aware of the middle, but don't live there: Laird and Brancaccio have no more idea of the "middle" than they do "fairness." Their idea of "middle" is the same as most people's idea of "fringe leftist."

• Ignore the race card. Demanding and working to implement our immigration laws is not racist. Our laws are color-blind and apply equally to everyone... unless, of course, you're a minority illegal alien. Then, in Laird's world, they're not supposed to apply at all. Most people, for example, understand that opposition to that blithering idiot in the White House has nothing to do with his skin color, for example, but that because he's in over his head while he's burying US. For a hypocrite to exclaim "not everyone is exactly like you" based on his columns? When is HE going to "deal with it?"

• If your spouse can help you and wants to, put them IN to politics. Where, for example, is Laird's cheap shot at Obama for running the Food-Gestapo, Klingon Princess out there?

 • Live by your party platform: I get that Laird wants every Republican to be Marc Boldt, who has long since stopped acting or thinking like a Republican, even abandoning his Republican seatmate. Ignoring those who have fought, financed, walked and worked to get you elected is likely to make them jettison you. If you don't want to be a Republican like Boldt does not want to be a Republican, then don't say you're a Republican.

• Always listen to your constituents: but just remember, those with an agenda are counting on your stupidity and those on the fringe left aren't always the smartest. Democracy is a concept that allows for stupidity: just look at the fact that Obama is president. Think for yourself and represent the majority.

• Ignoring a "consensus" of speakers at any particular public hearing as the supposed voice of the people is about as foolish as interpreting a "consensus" of letters to the editor on any particular day as the supposed voice of the readers. When you have a controversial issue of major import, don't be afraid to PUT IT TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. Don't listen to slimeballs who talk about a "lack of leadership" because you believe the people should be heard.

• Disregard singular requests that ignore the will of the people: when the downtown mafia or the despicable excuse of a newspaper demands that you waste billions on a worthless black hole of our money on a project that will enrich a few at the life-long expense of the many, remember: your job is to serve ALL of the people; not just those with a huge wallet and the media behind them.
These are simple, much more realistic and mainstream views then the idiocy Laird spewed this AM.

It's just a damned shame he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge it.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

memo to Katya Delevar: documentation that Ron Paul supports gender-based abortion.

Earlier today (Saturday) Katya Delevar, local Ron Paul coordinator, requested documentation that Paul supports gender-based abortion.

I indicated that I would be happy to oblige:
So... why did Ron Paul vote for gender-based abortion?
Just wonderin'... and just sayin'.
On the motion to suspend the rules and Pass, as amended: 
The Prenatal Non-discrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012. 

Paul was one of SEVEN "Republicans" to vote for this well known, Chinese social engineering philosophy.

Why did Paul vote this way?  Who knows?  Why does that clown do anything he does?  It sure doesn't look to me like the "Campaign for Liberty" gives a damn about the "liberty" of those yet to be born.

The question is this: if his followers are so-called "pro-life Republicans," what are THEY going to do about it?

I, for one, would do everything I could to get this guy out of my government.  Or any other "Republican" who voted FOR this nonsense.

Which just goes to show what I've been saying all along: the Paulbots are as "Republican" as one of my Cavalier Spaniels.

Unfortunately, Katia, I don't have you email address, or I would have sent this to you directly.  I hope this will do... and, when next we meet, I look forward to hearing what, if any, difference any of this made to you.

My guess is none.

Brancaccio throws a tizzy because GOP'ers are passing on his S&M show.

For years now, there have been two categories of candidates for the democratian editorial board in competitive races: water carriers (typically democrats who share in the lazy C's socialist, extortive, screw-the-voters vision) and everyone else.

And usually, those in the "everyone else" category (Typically Republican) have as much chance of getting an endorsement... or even fair treatment from the democrat's newsletter as they do winning the lottery.

This has been an ongoing pattern for the last 24 years or so that I've been paying attention.

There are certain candidates, like Sen. Don Benton and Commissioner Tom Mielke, who are hated by the Columbian hierarchy because they despise the agenda.  And those who despise the agenda must be made to pay.

Which leads to garbage like this:

Speaking of shows, what about no-shows? As in politicians. 
It's the political season. For most of us that means tuning in or tuning out the noise. 
For a few of us here at The Columbian it means setting up editorial board meetings with the candidates. 
Most politicians are good people and good sports. They understand the drill and know they often will get asked tough questions by the board. 
Hey, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the game. 
On occasion some politicians will decline our invitation to meet. This week, for example, Republicans Tom Mielke -- the incumbent county commissioner -- and one challenger, Darren Wertz, both opted to stay away. Democrats Joe Tanner and Ron Barca showed up as did Bob Freund. 
It's their choice, of course, but I think it says something when candidates don't show. 
Recently I had two liberal elected officials tell me they felt the questions I was asking them were "loaded." 
Of course the word "loaded" is well, loaded. I countered that I was asking them probing, tough questions. 
I'm not suggesting conservatives or liberals should love tough questions. But I am suggesting they should accept them as part of the dynamic give-and-take in our democratic society. 
Being a public official is difficult. Very difficult. And a part of that difficulty is being held accountable. Often with tough questions.
Tanner will, of course, get your endorsement.  Mielke knows that.

He's a democrat, although knowing how unpopular that is he's distancing himself as far from that as possible; he's got the downtown mafia in his pocket, and you people hate Mielke.  Neither Barca nor Freund (a Paulbot) are raising a nickel, relatively speaking, so they'll talk to anyone.

Odd, isn't it?  The guy who wrote this garbage seems to be accountable to no one and he never bothers responding to the "tough questions."

Like, for example, why hasn't this slimy worm ever reported on the Oregon Supreme Court decision that explains the true purpose and reasoning behind the CRC scam?
 It's their choice, of course, but I think it says something when candidates don't show. 
Yeah.  It means that, perhaps, a little bit of introspection on the part of the arrogant putzs of the editorial board is called for.

It means that the standards you apply, Lou, should be the same for EVERY candidate, and not situational.

It means that you need to get past your obvious fringe-left bent.

It means that after years of beating the hell out of Republican candidates in competitive races, giving the democrat the knee-jerk endorsement just because of their party label, that YOU need to look inward and re-evaluate what YOU are doing: is an unfair, rigged process what's best for this community?

Chances are that in competitive races, you will endorse the democrat.

Chances are that when a candidate opposes your agenda or you personally, you personally will trash them, like you have Mielke so many times, even when he;s been proven right.

Chances are that your ignorance and partisanship will get in the way.

And when you KNOW you're going to hammered... why on earth should anyone waste their time and effort handing you the tool?

So, yeah... it DOES say something about them: it's says they've wised up.

And hopefully, fewer and fewer candidates will waste their time kissing your ass.

Most readers know I've had serious heartburn with a county gun confiscation ordinance That Boldt (and Stuart) both voted for....

(Full disclosure: Marc Boldt is my brother-in-law and I worked for him as his Legislative Assistant for 6 years in the Washington State House of Representatives.)

I'm not the only one.

For several months now, I've been expressing my dismay at the covert effort on the county books and Marc Boldt's role in that effort to strip away our gun rights in the event the commissioners, in their infinite wisdom, declare some sort of emergency.

This law, which resembled the debacle of the confiscation laws unconstitutionally used by local authority in the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, are just that: unconstitutional.

I, for one, put my political faith in the Second Amendment.  To either state or local authority, I offer the same bit of advice:

Don't like it?

Then change it.

But don't think for one minute you can abridge it, or violate it and those of us who have weapons will just cheerfully go along with it, handing over what, for many of uis in the rural; areas, would be our only means of protection due to an otherwise tied up civil authority who cannot find the time or assets to take over that job, particularly in some nebulous, not particularly well defined "emergency" situation.

Ain't happening.

I offer up the following in explanation.  I will be contacting the commissioners in the upcoming week, in the hjopes that their response this time will exceed that of Marc Boldt's last time when I complained to him about his efforts directly after he did this:
"The Legislature gave us this authority.  If you have a problem with it, take it up with them."
Not unlike the Nuremberg Laws implemented by Nazi Germany that simply legalized the death, horror, destruction, and confiscation of assets owned by Jews in Germany, this "befehl is befehl" crap doesn't cut it, and that the legislature illegally provided this "authority" in no way means that the commission was required to make an effort to codify it or exercise it.
Emergency Ordinance Backfires on Gun Rights!
June 22, 2012
Story by: Lynda Wilson and Licentia Diligo
The Second Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.   The Washington State Constitution says it even stronger, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired” However, two of our current County Commissioners think otherwise (Stuart and Boldt).  An Ordinance that was unanimously passed in October 2005 by the three Commissioners at the time, Marc Boldt, Steve Stuart and Betty Sue Morris, determined that during a declared emergency, if they thought you “intend” to cause bodily harm you can’t even possess, let alone carry a gun (or anything else that could be construed as a weapon).   Mind you, possess means ‘own’ therefore not even able to keep in your own home or anywhere else.  This  Ordinance 2005-10-03, Section 2.48A.090 (i) references this.
“An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms or any instrument which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm; provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties”.

Marc Boldt Dist. 2
You must understand, that this ordinance does not say specifically that they can confiscate your firearm (or other instrument) but, in order to understand this completely, you must read between the lines.  The intent IS to disarm you.  Of course, the most important time to carry your gun is at times of unrest andan emergency of this magnitude to declare it as such would be such a time.  A natural disaster or a terrorist attack and all things in between all qualify.  These are the times when citizens are most vulnerable.  So, the disaster occurs, the state of emergency is declared and you strap on your gun.  We all are well aware that looting and chaos very often accompany these events.  In fact, case in point, during Hurricane Katrina, in an unconstitutional and idiotic move on the elected officials part, they removed, (and at times, forcefully) the guns of the citizens when they needed them most.  Many, young and old, were injured by the very officers doing the confiscating.

NRA video of gun confiscation in New Orleans.
Marty Hayes, a well-known firearms instructor and owner of Firearms Academy of Seattle indicated there were three issues directly relating to this Ordinance.  1) The 4th amendment constitutionality which gives “the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated…”  This ordinance would directly violate this with the word “possess” inserted.  2) The framers of the Constitution were clear that they meant that Lawfully Armed Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in states of emergency, hence the 2nd Amendment.3) Being the Ordinance is profoundly unconstitutional, some that hold their 2nd Amendment rights dear, would defend their rights to the death.  Would we really want to put our police and deputies in such harms way, especially when it is not legal?

Steve Stuart Dist. 3
So, back to Clark County…  At what point and by whom would the decision be made that the reason I carry my gun was to cause bodily harm.  What factors would they use to determine this “intent”.  Precisely how could anyone tell what my intent was?  As the law stands now, and by the way, what most licensed to carry a concealed gun (CPL) already know is how to legally carry, when to legally carry and where to legally carry.  My intent at all times of carrying a gun would only be what it would take to defend my person should the need arise.  If I am carrying a legal firearm and it is necessary to use it in self-defense, then the very definition of why I am carrying is to produce bodily harm, doesn’t it?  In all of the hours of training with firearms, I have always been told if I carry or possess a gun, I must be prepared to use it to stop the threat.  They never advocate merely showing it to my attacker to accomplish this.  I must be prepared to inflict harm to stop the threat, in some way or another, fatally if need be, to defend myself.  So there you go, my intent is always to stop
bodily harm to myself however I can.  Does that then give them the “right” to confiscate my gun? According to this ordinance, I think so.
One note about the timing of the passage of this Ordinance, it was adopted  October 3, 2005, merely five weeks after the catastrophic Hurricane Katrina fiasco in New Orleans.  What does the timing of this say?
By July 2006, the NRA was a key player in protecting the Second Amendment rights of citizens in the country.  They strongly encouraged legislation that was passed with broad bi-partisan margins of 322-99 in the House and 84-16 in the Senate that prohibits federal, state and local authorities from confiscating lawfully owned firearms during declared states of emergencies; the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act” (HR 5013).  The law now insures that law-abiding gun owners cannot be disarmed by any state or local governments during any declared emergency.
And, to add injury to insult, the same ordinance also goes so far as to state that all business establishments where firearms and/or ammunition for firearms are sold be closed and that all sales, distribution or even giving away of firearms and/or ammunition cease.  (2005-10-03-2.48A (g)).  You wonder why citizens have decided that stocking up and storing ammunition is a mighty fine idea.  Because, when you need it most, your government (in the name of protection) has decided you don’t.
Government today has been over-reaching their authority almost on a daily basis.  As in this ordinance, they say the regulations and restrictions are to “protect the public health, safety and welfare”.  According to this Emergency Ordinance, the Chair of the County Commissioners is the one that calls for the emergency status.  That Chairperson is currently Marc Boldt, the very one that made the original motion (meeting minutes) to pass these unconstitutional ordinances in the first place and absolutely infringes on your Second Amendment rights.  Are you good with that??
I suggest we take this to our County Commissioners and ask them to restore our Second Amendment Rights.  The laws on the books already have the capability of arresting someone whom is breaking the law.  Carrying your firearm in times of chaos does not meet that standard.
There is an election for County Commissioners this November.  There are good candidates out there running for these positions that will absolutely defend your right to bear arms.  David Madore and Tom Mielke are the two that I am confident will do so.  We need people in elected positions that will support and defend our constitutions, not those that try to circumvent them.  The choice is clear.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  – Benjamin Franklin
At this point, I cannot endorse David Madore for reasons I'll be getting into later.

But that doesn't change the fundamental fact that Boldt, Stuart and the Commission has violated our Constitutional rights with this ordinance (as I have been saying since it was enacted) and that ordinance must be removed... post-haste.