In my View: Jeers.

Today's a 3-fer, 3 idiotic observations by the rag, all in a row.

Jeers: To Clark County Commissioners David Madore and Tom Mielke for making more than 200 citizens wait for almost four hours to offer their testimony at Tuesday night's meeting. The excuse given by the two commissioners for suddenly changing the order of the agenda was to allow county staff to deal with regular business and not have to stay for the entire meeting. But that excuse doesn't pass the smell test. Madore and Mielke knew the crowd was mostly hostile toward their appointment of state Sen. Don Benton to director of environmental services, and switching the order of the meeting smelled every bit like a delay tactic. 

As one citizen testified, "Mission accomplished." Many of those who signed up to testify couldn't stay so long and chose to leave. And this, mind you, from two elected officials who often pontificate about the value of listening to the public. Meanwhile, the public is left to wonder: Even as long and as excruciating as that night was for Madore and Mielke, how worse might it have been if citizens actually had been allowed to testify as scheduled?

Answering the last question first: as bad as Stuart could possibly make it, in violation of those precious rules you keep lying about.

Where's your chastisement and warnings to keep the thugs under control?  Where's your "Jeer" for Stuart, since he allowed his thugs to repeatedly break the rules concerning meetings?

Where's your comparison to the Vancouver City Council censorship rules that your morons loved so much?

Do your guys take "hypocrisy" medications, or does it just come naturally?

Yeah, the "mission was accomplished."  Your mission to turn that meeting into a travesty, with Steve Stuart's able assistance, went off brilliantly.

Cheers: To Mike Hope of Lake Stevens, the only legislator to attend a Wednesday signing by Gov. Jay Inslee of the only gun-related measure to pass the Legislature during this year's regular session. As reported by Jay Cornfield of The Herald in Everett, Hope was the prime sponsor of House Bill 1612. Cornfield wrote that this means "those convicted of certain felony firearm offenses or found not guilty by reason of insanity of any felony firearm offense will be required to register with a county's sheriff's department. That data will be punched into a statewide database maintained by the Washington State Patrol." 

We wish the Legislature had done more in the regular session to reduce gun violence, but on such a controversial, emotional and hotly disputed issue, small victories must be claimed whenever possible.

I'm astounded that whoever wrote this garbage is let out without a keeper.

I wrote the following to the sainted Rep. Hope when word leaked out he was supporting this Unconstitutional abortion: (On Feb 1, this year)

Rep. Hope:
 Let me say on the outset that I’m not a constituent.  I did, however, spend 6 years on staff as Marc Boldt’s LA in the House so I have at least a vague clue as to how things work up there. 

.Thus, an “SNR” (Sincere Non-Response) is not necessary.

 I am also an Army Veteran (Enlisted/commissioned – Infantry/Armor/Administration – 14 years) and was involved in the American Legion up to my eye balls (Including 5th District Commander of Washington) a while back so I also have some vague knowledge of weaponry.   

Further, I hold a CWP since I received death threats working for then Rep. Boldt, some 17 years or so ago.  I am rarely unarmed in public. 

 I cannot adequately express my disappointment in your actions regarding this bill, but one of the joys of the First Amendment and the other Rights I prepaid through my service to this country is the ability to both speak my mind AND to speak it to you. 

During my time up there, I was privileged to see both the best and the worst of this body of people. 

Your actions here are among the worst, because this effort will accomplish absolutely nothing of what you want it to. 

 This bill is a classic case of confusing “motion” with “action.”  As both a legislator and a police officer, you feel compelled to do SOMETHING in the face of Sandy Hook, presumably.  You obviously believe in this effort, unintended consequences notwithstanding, or you wouldn't be doing it.  Unfortunately, except for punishing those of us who obey the law for the actions of those who do not, this bill accomplishes absolutely nothing positive. 

Sandy Hook is yet another name that will live in infamy.  The question I have is this: what in this bill would have stopped it? 

That this bill, had it been fully implemented, would have made no difference in Sandy Hook is the thing. 

That this bill would do nothing to improve the security of soft targets like schools is the thing. 

That this bill punishes those of us who follow the law for the actions of those who break the law is the thing. 

That this bill will make no impact on street sales where guns are sold to those who are not supposed to have them (Felons, for example) is the thing. 

That this bill will do nothing to stop anyone from, say, buying a gun in Oregon or Idaho without undergoing this nonsense is the thing. 

In fact, I offer you one word that sums up the ultimate aim of the democrats you are joining with: Chicago. 

This bill accomplishes absolutely nothing except to increase the bureaucracy (always a democrat goal) and provide revenue to the state (always a democrat goal) while making it more difficult for those who obey the law to purchase weapons. 

It's difficult to see where THAT isn't the real goal of this idiocy: and why would government want it to be more difficult for the law-abiding to buy weapons? 

We have a Constitution. It sets limits on government. This bill appears to cavalierly violate those limits. 

Those who obey the law will suffer. Those who break the law won't even notice... or care. And it seems to me that government's priorities are just the tiniest bit screwed up here. 

I don’t doubt your sincerity.  But I would wish that in this instance, like all others where legislation is proposed or supported, those doing the proposing or supporting would stand back and see what the outcome would be BEFORE this (or any other bill) is passed into law. 

This bill will not do what it appears that you want it to do.  But it will harm those of us who obey the law.  And I find it hard to believe you seem unaware of that… so I thought I’d take this opportunity to write to a legislator not in my district (18th) to let them know what *I* see. 

A few amendments won’t help this fundamentally flawed bill.  There are many other options available that would not be offensive to my rights… such as mandatory life sentences for anyone using a weapon during the course of committing a crime. 

After all, if you want to stop the use of a weapon for an illegal purpose, what better way to do that then actually holding the perpetrator accountable instead of further restricting those of us who follow the law because of the actions of others? 

What a novel concept. 

Your web site is replete with all the pats on the back from the left.  There doesn’t seem to be much discussion there of the opposing point of view.  I would suggest that perhaps you give that opposing view a little more thought. 

Thank you for your time

So, what those leftist idiots were "cheering" was the bizarre concept that those of us who obey the law should be punished because of the actions of those who do not.  It's of note that not even the democrats, who control the House by a substantial margin, could get the votes they needed to pass this stupidity.

Jeers: To petition organizers who have been trying to get Vancouver City Council to put the light-rail issue up to public vote. We hasten to add, this Jeer is not against having such a vote. The Columbian, in fact, has advocated a countywide advisory vote on light rail. But the petition organizers continue to be their own worst enemy with sloppy planning. At Tuesday night's council meeting, Vancouver Assistant City Attorney Linda Marousek listed no fewer than 15 ways in which the initiative fell outside the scope of the city's powers and would not be legally defensible. A well-organized approach would've seen this coming and, with the necessarily thorough legal preparation, this initiative effort could've regained some momentum. Now, though, it's back to Square One, or to the courts.

Well, not everyone is the genius of Lou Brancaccio.

As the local nazi's and their propaganda minister have shown. democracy can be a messy business.

That said, there's nothing here that the city, if they gave a rat's ass about the people, couldn't have done on their own.  And oddly, Lou overlooked that when he published this. just like his lies about advocating a countywide advisory vote.

These scum didn't even want a promised charter vote.  And that we're not GETTING a countywide vote on the CRC scam, on it's face, should be enough to peel this rag OFF the CRC, if they are, in fact, "advocating" for one, because without making your approval conditional on such a vote, then how have these scum "advocated" for it?.

They haven't, of course, because their "advocacy" for this vote takes place with the frequency of a Haley's Comet fly-by, or Brancaccio telling the truth... both about equal in their appearances.

The rag "advocating" for such a vote but doing nothing to change their position since they're not GETTING such a vote, is as worthless as Jaime Herrera, Falsely claiming she opposes any part of the CRC Scam.

Just remember: when the Columbian makes statements like those in the paragraphs above, the reader's default position has to be that they're not true... because the idiocy they've shown in this garbage means somebody needs to be put in the "Home."