Another sign Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers was dead wrong to violate her campaign promise and vote FOR the gas tax/tab fee increase.

So, imagine my surprise when I saw this:

Betty Sue Morris · 

Vancouver, Washington

OK - I know I'm the only one out there who feels this way, but I'm willing to pay the taxes and not complain. Transportation is critical to the state's economy and we have neglected our infrastructure way too long. And I'm pleased that Senator Ann Rivers had the character to vote for the tax.

Like · Reply · 

Confusing, that.


You see, "character" doesn't involve violating pledges or promises.

Unless, of course, you're a democrat.  Then, somehow, if you do what they want, that amounts to "character" when you they agree with you... which almost always means raising your taxes.

Of course, it's also easy for BS Morris to applaud Rivers' lies.  After all, BS isn't running for anything, is she?

Rivers blows, at best, a $500 million hole in this county's economy with her gas tax/tab fee vote, burdening every man, woman and child with a debt of something over $1500... without asking us, of course... and our local democrat icon says that such a vote, which flies in the face of Rivers' campaign-promise-to-get-elected pledge of refusing to vote for gas tax increases and tab fee increases because she's "heard the voters," some how represents what democrats call "character."

Is it any wonder that few democrats around here can get elected dog catcher?

Does Morris actually believe this sort of lie HELPS Rivers?

Senator, here's a clue: with friends like Morris, who needs enemies?

More democratian ignorance: arming service members as a result of terrorist attacks.

Naturally, fringe-left outfits like the scum running the democratian are going to take every opportunity to engage in rank partisanship on any issue confronting the nation, particularly during an election... and an election with the variety of partisan overtones such as the one confronting us locally is no exception.

Locally, State Rep. Lynda Wilson (R-17) put together a letter that went to the governor with some 30 odd (If memory serves) signatures urging Inslee to allow members of the National Guard to be armed at military facilities in the name of their security.

As muslim attacks ramp up far faster than the requisite security measures to keep our men and women safe, arming these trained members of the military becomes increasingly important... and the reasons are obvious.

What happened a few days ago at that recruiting station and elsewhere was not an anomaly.  It's happened before: soldiers have been shot at other recruiting stations in the past because those people were just as soft a target as any kindergarten class.

Like most leftists, Inslee loathes the military: that particular fish rots from the head down and in this case, he's merely emulating the Great Black Hope running this country into the ground from Washington, D.C., therefore not an object to be blamed as much as an object to be pitied.

Meanwhile, the fringe-leftists infesting us of course, bristle at the very idea of soldiers being allowed to protect themselves from jihadists with weapons they're trained to use.

God forbid.

But then, for the most part, their hatred of the military exceeds that of the president, so what can we expect?

The fact is that something like 8 states allow this policy to be in place; the world continues to spin on its axis, more or less, and these Guard members have some level of security that, perhaps, their Reserve brethren do not share.

For those who've never felt strongly enough about their country to wear it's uniforms (Yes, we're looking at you, any reporter working for the democratian, including whichever clown it was that wrote this hideous editorial) it's easy to presuppose or believe anything.  You can be a gigantic hypocrite about it as the test-tube military is rotted from within while you decide not to soil YOUR hands in this country's defense (Like you, Molehill Moeller) you can claim some level of non-existent expertise in matters related to security, weapons, logistics, use of weapons in the civilian environment and so forth (That's a euphemism for talking out your ass about stuff you know nothing about) you can make the obvious claim that the Guard in this state will echo their boss's sentiment (of course arming the Guard in non-secure environments is necessary: that someone from the Inslee Administration would claim otherwise, a pure political reflection of their governor's position should neither be particularly surprising nor relevant... what would you expect them to say?) and you can then use this as yet another opportunity to attack those you disagree with, all without providing one shred of evidence to back your "not-necessary position"... (although certainly, no information has been provided to indicate WHY it's not necessary and how, for example, were such an attack to take place here, the outcome would be particularly different than it was in Tennessee)  and you can quote obviously faulty, self-serving claims such as that by the Washington Post (uncited) that this country has an undefined (and unlinked) "mass shooting every 8 days."

You can attempt to deflect blame for this policy to Bush; after all, to the leftist, EVERYTHING is Bush's fault: and you can overlook the fact that the slimeball-in-chief has been in office since January, 2009, and that EVERY policy now in effect is HIS policy, regardless of when... or who... started it.... an equally irrelevant observation to the problem: how do we provide a secure environment for our non-electric pop-up targets?

But you see, this is like every other leftist anti-gun argument: at the end, it fails to solve anything.

It's like their whining and bitching and moaning about arming teachers, or the so-called gun show loophole.  They FEEL badly about a situation which they, again, typically know nothing about, they arrive at the typically leftist solution which is we MUST do something about a given situation, even if it has outrageous costs attached (Inslee's carbon cap fetish comes to mind) even if, having wasted all that money, time, energy and effort, it accomplishes absolutely nothing towards the stated goal and is frequently causing more harm than good.

Wilson's letter certainly does not make the Guard members invulnerable.  But what it does, were such a policy to be implemented, is to at least give them a fighting chance instead of making their status not unlike that of a duck in a shooting gallery.  And, as always, this leftist snivelfest is long on partisanship, long on complaint, but very short (Nonexistent, actually) on solutions to the problem; in this case, that of security for the members of the Guard who are so exposed and such tempting targets because of the attitudes manifested here that... and the common fringe-left thread that all guns are bad, no matter why they're carried.

The irony of this is obvious: the 2nd Amendment argument these clowns use is to point to is typically the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and yet, here we have this state's actual National Guard, perhaps the BEST "regulated militia" in Washington and these very same clowns STILL do NOT want them armed.

You just can't win with these idiots.

The subject of "gun violence" has a place in A discussion... just not THIS discussion.  But the slaughter of these Marines and the Sailor was not a typical Chicago weekend, a town where gun ownership and use is among the most heavily regulated in the country but which still doesn't bat an eyelid if 20 people are shot in a given weekend.

The left never seems to foam at the mouth over primarily black men shooting other primarily black men, for example.

No, this was about a terrorist muslim slaughtering unarmed members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

But leave it to a fringe-left nutburger like the clown who wrote this editorial to fail to understand the nuances and to make the abortive attempt to meld his anti-gun fetish in the name of "gun violence" into this discussion... when that issue has nothing to do with these assassinations, save for the manner of the delivery.

If you're going to babble about the efforts of the security of the exposed members of the Guard, try and understand that this isn't about a gun show loop hole or a lack of gun registration or background checks.  After all the recent slaughter in a movie theater had every element the left whines about in place and they DID NOT WORK... since the nut job who fired those rounds CLEARED a background check and would have been in full-compliance with the idiotic feel-good gun grabber initiative just passed here.

The deaths of those slaughtered in Tennessee were, essentially and realistically, likely unpreventable. Arming these Marines and the sailor would have only provided them with a fighting chance of survival.  But the idea that keeping our recruiters and members of the Guard unarmed somehow INCREASES their chance of survival in an attack like this?

And that must be the goal, right?  Shouldn't any discussion about arming members of the Guard and other soft, military trained targets be focused primarily on their security?  And does the decision by the moron who wrote this ignorant editorial, and the governor and the Guard spokesman make our Guard members MORE secure... or less?

Had these troops in Tennessee been armed, it's hard to say if the outcome would have been different.

But it could have been.  Maybe.  And that's a hell of a lot more than we've got now.

Because we need to know that in so many instances such as this, the discussion here was NOT about how to increase the Guard's security, but instead, only what the left could accomplish to, in this instance, change nothing... leaving them just a vulnerable to jihadi attack as they were last year at this time.

I carry a weapon everywhere I go.  I was a soldier for a long time, and a large part of that time was as an Infantry weapons instructor as an NCO and also as the officer in charge of the 104th Division crew-served weapons branch.  I know what the level of training was then, and we've had a decade-long war since then, meaning the level of training is better... much better... then when I implemented it for the division.

The idea that these trained members of the "well regulated militia" the left whines about when it comes to the idea of carrying a weapon CANNOT do what I do... is sheer, unadulterated, leftist idiocy and hypocrisy.

All of the rest of it is irrelevant, feel-good, partisan leftist eye-wash.  Meanwhile, no solutions were offered.

Just another opportunity to take a shot at those who HAVE offered a solution... that even at it's worst, is far better than either what the left has offered... or in the alternative, far better than nothing.  (Think in terms of Madore's 3rd Bridge idea.)

And "nothing" is what this idiocy in today's democratian offers us to address this problem.

Again.

And this irony is the worst of all:

Having just engaged in a major part of the partisan "cacophony," the rag then pleads that we end it in favor of "more listening."

If their fringe-left effort is the result of "more listening?"

Give me noise, instead.

UPDATE: Watched the news last night: KOIN 6: Starting next week, Clark County residents to be raped for $500 million on the gas tax.

The gas tax with it's GOP-Senate applied emergency clause and it's lack of a referendum clause, begins next week with, if I'm not mistaken, a 4 (sorry... that's a SEVEN cent) increase.

Additional increases will take place over the next two years... kinda like additional reasons to shop in Oregon will increase in the next two years.

Of the $15 BILLION the people of this state are going to get screwed over for the gas tax/tab fee scam, the people of Clark County will contribute $700 million.

UPDATE:  That means, based on a population estimated at 450,000 that we all will owe, $1555.56... every man, woman and child, thanks in part to Rivers' gas tax/fee increase vote. ($700,000,000/450,000)

Of that $700 million, the people of Clark County will get $200 million back.

Thank you Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers for YOUR help in blowing a $700 million hole in our local economy over the next decade.

How.... democrat of you.

Sticking it to the legislature that's stuck it to us: I-1366

Tim Eyman has done it again and naturally, the leftists hate it.

On 5 separate occasions, the people of this state have sent a message to the scum in the Legislature. And on 5 separate occasions, they've ignored us.

This time?

Not so much.

In a nutshell, Eyman's latest requires the legislature to do what we've asked them to do so many times before: Put a referendum out there for the people to vote on that would to change the state constitution and require a legislative super-majority to increase taxes.  Taxes referred for a vote... like the gas tax SHOULD have been, could go out for a vote on a simple majority.

The legislature will have until April 15th next year to have passed the bill requiring this issue to go on the ballot.

The initiative will require a 2/3rds affirmative vote by both Houses to jack our already stratospheric taxes any higher.

With great fanfare, the scum running the GOP Senate implemented a super-majority vote requirement, albeit somewhat smaller... a 60% super-majority requirement to increase taxes that they then, temporarily, got the Lieutenant Governor to declare "unconstitutional," without any effort to overturn his ruling... which could have been done by a simple majority... so they could jack up the gas tax without worrying about this  super-majority requirement only to then require him to reverse himself two months or so later and declare the formerly "unconstitutional" rule suddenly... and magically... constitutional... for what became the "Sen. Andy Hill" show so he could make a bunch of leftist votes on the general fund budget while making sure there wouldn't be enough votes to actually pass them... he was frequently the 29th vote when passage would have required 30.

But even though the opportunity has been theirs for the last 3 sessions, the same GOP Senate that rammed this rip off of a gas tax down our throats has failed to act on this referendum.

If they refuse to do this time, then the state portion of the sales tax will be reduced from 6.5 cents per dollar to 5.5 cents, presumably on April 16.

Automatically.

The left and, no doubt, some Republicans (alleged Republicans, anyway) will hate this initiative.

Having shown in the last session that they despise the idea of giving us any say on taxes, I expect that some GOP slime will join with the leftist haters and file some sort of suit to stop it from appearing on the ballot, because GOD knows they wouldn't want us to cut any revenue since they lack the desire to cut it themselves.

It goes without saying that the left hates this, since it's their standard to completely ignore the voters, displaying that bizarre concept that once they're elected, they can do anything they want... which, as it turns out, is becoming an increasingly GOP meme as well... at all levels of government.

When the word gets out around here, the heads of local fringe-left nutters like Molehill Moeller will explode.

But I think this has a great chance of passage.  And God Help the GOP elected official who opposes it.

The hypocrisy of the St. John's Bridge/Shell protest.

Face it, those clowns don't have a clue.

Using massive amounts of petroleum products of about every description, these hypocrites violated federal and maritime laws of a wide variety of descriptions and, of course, our resident sanctuary city sat back and let them.

It was a joke; those scum CANNOT be taken seriously; these idiots are kayaking around in plastic boats (Made mostly of oil) and the protesters were hanging from poly-ethylene ropes (Made mostly of oil) having driven to the location in vehicles made in large part of plastics (Made mostly of oil) using gasoline or diesel (You guessed it - made mostly of oil) while they were, allegedly, protesting the drilling of, well, oil.

That's a huge problem for the left and their situational ethics; this kind of highly visible, rank hypocrisy leaves a long-lasting stench that does far more harm to their cause then good.

Yes, much of the country was focused on this stupidity where their hypocrisy was visible for all to see.

The idea that because of this idiocy, Obama will do anything different is as asinine a concept as I've ever seen.

I refuse to give credibility to any of these leftist scum as long as any of them use, directly or indirectly, anything made from petroleum or petroleum byproducts.

To me, it's as asinine as a fat guy like me protesting the manufacture of donuts.

Until something better comes along in terms of energy and lubrication, oil is what we've got.  And no amount of bitching, whining, moaning and complaining will change that.

And those speaking on behalf of this effort came across like blithering idiots... particularly on the issue of their hypocrisy when asked, as I observed a KATU reporter ask one of those water buffalo yesterday about this very issue.

This is the kind of stupidity that hurts all of these nutberger, leftist efforts, like scamming us out of the oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver.

Idiocy won't get it done, boys and girls.

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 reside 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.

Thus, 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.

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...

Another of the many reasons not to vote for Bush

PAPER: HILLARY TAKES PRIVATE JET AFTER LAUNCHING CLIMATE PLAN...
Burns 347 gallons of fuel every hour!

DEMS FOR JEB

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.

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, countywide.

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 straightforward.  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:)

2. Brent Boger
   July 12, 2015 at 8:46 PM

   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.  What's difficult here is that the facts never changed.

And 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.

It's nonsense that this happened because Inslee was elected.  In the end, Rivers' failure to include some sort of disclaimer on her written pledge to oppose this garbage... 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.

Actually, I frequently call people "lars," when, they, well, "lie."  You, of course, 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... it doesn't change the fact that they are, well, liars.

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 of lawyer.

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!

Hops Claim South Division First Half Championship 

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!

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.

July 24, 2015, 10:20 am

Cruz accuses McConnell of lying

By Jordain Carney

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." 

 

The Texas Republican's remarks come after McConnell set up a procedural vote on Sunday to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which saw its charter expire last month. Democrats have said McConnell agreed to allow a vote on attaching Ex-Im to "must-pass" legislation to win support from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) for a trade package earlier this year. 

 

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:

Inslee, don’t derail hard-won transportation deal 

Originally published July 23, 2015 at 6:00 pm Updated July 23, 2015 at 4:16 pm 

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 Seattle Times editorial boardThe Seattle Times

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?

Thoughts on this election, locally.

It's a new set of tea leaves, to be sure.  And it's highly unusual to open a ballot and see only a single issue... in my case, the vote on the county chair... as the only thing requiring a vote.

As expected, turnout appears to be pathetic.  And that's typically a bad sign for leftist candidates, in my case, Boldt and Dalesandro.

Local leftists, including some who know better but who want to ride the crest of their meme, are already firing up their "Madore bought the election" scam as plan A, while if he doesn't make it, firing up their "Madore sucked so much that he COULDN'T buy the election" fall back position.

Situational ethics aside (and if the left is known for anything, they're known for that variety of hypocrisy) money does NOT buy elections.

As an incumbent, if your performance sucks and your record sucks, typically, that means with an articulate challenger with a plan, you're likely to lose.

As a challenger, the critical element is voter anger.  Not the fragmented, artificial fringe-leftist hatred variety practiced here by the democratian and their C3G2 hate group proxy... but wide-based, voter anger at a failure to implement the campaign promises that got you the job in the first place and a lack of a future vision.

Now, Dalesandro's a punk and his tenure in Battle Ground has been a joke.  Save for voting to ram a $20 car tab fee down the throat of his constituents, he has done nothing of note.

He's a fringe-left, Obama worshiping nut who would bring that undercurrent of failed policies and disrespect to the job where he would always, stupidly, believe himself to be the smartest guy in the room while making external excuses for ignoring the voters and, effectively, lying to them.

Boldt, of course, has an abysmal record of 2 terms as a commissioner that undercuts everything he might want to do... except, besides some nebulous, idiotic, "bring us together" stupidity ain't much.  Unfortunately, an 8 year record of ignoring us on the CRC, tax increases and, of course, his famous unconstitutional ordinance support to take our weapons away from us in the event of an emergency.... well, any one of those things would be enough to kill the deal for me... while all of them together?

That means he shouldn't be elected 3rd grade hall monitor.

That leaves the sitting councilors.

All three have a record of service.  All three have a record of fighting the special interests and leftists infesting us.

Two of the three hold the democratian in the proper amount of contempt.  They made sure that, for example, Lying Lefty Lou has suffered the embarrassment of losing his "paper of record" designation to a weekly, perhaps the only daily paper in the world to suffer such a fate.

All 3 have a years-long record of fighting to keep the CRC/Loot Rail scam in check for a decade.  All 3 have earned the democratian's hatred and ridicule, a years long Rule 5 effort, straight out of Alinsky's Rules.

Of the 3, Tom Mielke has spent the most time in office, with 4 terms in the House and 2 on the county commission, for a total of around 15 years at this point.

Jeanne Stewart had spent several tumultuous years doing all she could to represent us on the CTran Board only to be viciously attacked by The Liar Leavitt and Lying Lefty Lou at the rag.  Her service is around just under 13 years.

David Madore has been in office for the past 3 years, having defeated the aforementioned Boldt for the reasons already stated.

I wouldn't lose any sleep no matter which of these 3 win, ultimately.

At this point, with the abysmal turn out, it looks like a fight between the three sitting councilors.  I wouldn't at all be surprised if number 1 and 2 in the general were from these 3, though conventional wisdom would indicated that as the only declared democrat, that simpering idiot from Battle Ground is likely to make it to the general with the same 25% of the vote he'll get in the general.

But imagine a Mielke-Madore general.  The sound of leftist heads popping all over the county would be symphonic.

Who knows?  This is an entirely new set of tea leaves to run a twig through and I can be just as wrong as the next guy.

Win or lose however, it won't be because of money.  If it were money, we'd have a commissioner Joe Tanner... and we don't have that, do we?

In the second district, only Benton has separated herself from the pack on the idiocy of the CRC.  ALL of the rest of them, including Olson, are the same where it matters.  And I wouldn't be caught dead voting for anyone who believes replacing the I-5 Bridge is even needed, let alone our top transportation priority.

Green, of course, has been instrumental in running the C3G2 hate group and is a total CTran lackey.  Electing him guarantees electing another clown who'll ignore the voters and support all the things local leftist scum are so in favor of: increased taxes, bigger government, more social crap.  Further, this scumbag shouldn't be rewarded for his part in the charter hatred.

I'd write about the remaining councilor and city council races, but to put a point on it, they're not my circus... so they ain't my monkeys.

Whatever government we wind up with is the one we deserve.

I'm still confused: For many, it doesn't matter when our politicians lie as long as they get theirs.

I admit it: I don't get it.

We are embarking on the largest gas tax increase in the history of this state, because we all know the last one, which was a complete rip off of a lie (Roughly half of the projects on the "if you suckers pass this vote for the tax, this is what you'll get" list vaporized shortly after the vote passed.  But, what the hey, even our own State Supreme Court has ruled that it's perfectly OK to lie to the voters to get elected... or get your scam of an initiative passed... or any number of other reasons.) certainly will make all of the difference when it comes to implementing this gas tax.

One of the key players in that equation was/is my own state senator, Ann Rivers.

Senator Rivers did everything she could to pass this tax and accompanying tab fee increases, including supporting the completely unnecessary emergency clause and the lack of a referendum clause.  After all, we can't allow the people to have any say in this rip off, can we?

She voted for this insanity in spite of the fact that we here in the 4th most populous county in the state managed to get a whole $200 million or so out of a $15 BILLION package... and half of that will be wasted on an absolutely unneeded replacement of the I-5/Mill Plain intersection, one of the many parts of the late, unlamented CRC/Loot Rail scam.

But all of that is nether here nor there:

As a major part of her campaign for the senate, then newly appointed Sen. Rivers said this on her campaign web site:

"I will not support an increase in the gas tax."

Seems fairly straight forward.

Not a lot of "ifs, ands or buts" in a declarative statement like that.

Then this one:

"I will not support increases in tab fees."

Yet, tab fee increases that Rivers voted for are in store: they'll be increasing $15, not including increased weight fees.

And Senator Rivers, having pledged to vote AGAINST these issues, instead, voted for them.

OK.  To me, equally straight forward is the fact that she, well, lied.

It wasn't a little white lie, to be sure.  It was a huge, monstrous violation of the trust of the people who voted for her.  And she went ahead and voted that way KNOWING that her district would oppose such an effort at the ballot box... and she did it because she knows more than we do.

From the Reflector article:

“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.’’

But.... what about your pledge NOT to do this?

Where does that fit in?

What about your support of the emergency clause and your opposition to a referendum clause?

You see, Senator, it's far easier to defend a vote where you faithfully kept your word to your constituency than it is to engage in the hyperbole of a "when rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it" defense.

Her vote effectively handed billions of dollars over  to those engaging in the face of the legendary incompetence and ineptitude of those black-hole projects luike the SR-520 floating bridge and the legendary Bertha fiasco.

Not to mention the bogus nonsense of the so-called "Inslee Poison Pill," designed to keep him from doing something he never had any intention of doing, nor the legal capability of getting done: the addition of a unilateral, executive order tax on gasoline that may have closed in on as much as two dollars per gallon.

I believe, and the evidences suggests, that this was a scam designed entirely to provide the GOP-controlled senate with cover for screwing their constituency sideways.  Inslee has no desire to commit political suicide, guaranteeing his defeat in 2016 along with a political massacre for the democrats... by adding a fee, even if he had the capability of doing so, that would have been overturned by an almost entirely GOP-controlled legislature and a GOP governor that would be the automatic result.

As it is, given the GOP Senate's betrayal of the voters on, say, the Dream Act nonsense of allowing illegal aliens to not only pay in-state tuition but give them financial aid in the process... along with screwing us blindfolded on the gas tax/tab fee scam... who in their right mind would ever vote to put any of these morons back into office?

The destruction to his party in this state would have made Obamacare's destruction of the democrats look like a fender-bender in comparison.  As it is, if he leaves this alone, there's a very good chance he'll get the legislature back under democrat control.

Not to mention the skull-duggery of the scam by the Lieutenant Governor on the "unconstitutional" and then "constitutional" GOP senate rule requiring a super-majority to increase taxes... like the gas tax.

Neat how they worked that scam, ain't it?

Well, that sets the table for this:  I have been soundly and publicly thrashed by both a deputy mayor and a city councilman from different locales in our fair county for having the effrontery to call Sen. Rivers out on her, for lack of a better term, perfidy.  How dare I?

I'm told I'm obviously "emotional" over this.  And I've got it all wrong.

I have yet to see where I've "got it all wrong," and I have, in fact, treated this like I would any other series of lies to achieve an aim... and end, if you will.

I have blasted and will continue to blast the scum behind the I-502 pot legalization initiative because of their monumental lie concerning revenue to the state: they promised $582 million yearly as part of their scam... and they have yet to achieve 10% of that figure which I repeatedly pointed out was a lie during the campaign.

The deputy mayor called me to task over that, claiming that, after all, the people had spoken.  The inference being that with that vote, I should just shut the hell up and let it go.

And, of course, he was completely unconcerned about the lies used to get that particular vote through.

The GOP-Senate, of course, didn't care about those lies, and proceeded to let them off the hook for a huge chunk of that money instead of holding the scum in question accountable for their actions.

But then, I suppose in the face of the lies people have used to get elected, they really had no choice.

Meanwhile, no one elected that I've seen has called the slime behind that initiative out for their lies, much like none in elective office have called Sen. Rivers out for her lies to get elected.

It shows a true snapshot of their complete lack of integrity and ethics.

Rivers, meanwhile, is out beating the bushes, claiming that:

“I’m not afraid to stand up in front of anybody,’’ Rivers told me during a visit last week. “I had three town halls and each of them had no less than 60 people show up. At the end of those three town halls, I only had four people who came to me and said I still should have voted no. I had 20 ‘coffees’ with a least three or four people at each one and after I got through with my explanation, not one person disagreed with me."

I would venture to say she failed to discuss her campaign promises, used to get the title "Senator," that she shattered into little pieces... and how unimportant those pledges to the voters actually were.

And in case you're wondering, Senator, THIS person, who knows far more about what really happened up there than anyone you've "talked" to down here about the complete history of this fiasco is not convinced... and does disagree with you.

To that end, I am certainly "emotional."  I have been lied to.  I have been betrayed.  I have been ignored.  The GOP Senate acted like it was 2/3rd Seattle democrat instead of GOP controlled.

Someone who condemned Sen. Benton for a picture... gives Sen. Rivers a complete pass, even when I call her out and demand that he assess both Senators equally... the day after he had dinner at Rivers' house.

Someone that I would have given a kidney to had they needed it ignored the entire basis for their candidacy and service in office... for reasons that lack the ring of truth and are hollow when they're repeated... over... and over... and over again... as it repetition makes them true.

It doesn't.

Someone who tasked me with keeping them "grounded" has buried me with that dirt... the filth of politics that never ends.

And nobody in elective office gives a damn.

It won't matter, of course... because lying has become an ingrained part of the political scene.

Rivers will be elected again, or get whatever appointment she's after because of this sell out.  And the people defending her lies now will continue to defend them then.

But at base, they'll know.  And I'll know.  And I'll continue to use my meager soap box to remind people that do care of what happened here and who is responsible... and that the new name for 12 cents worth of anything has just become "a Rivers' worth," in honor of her horrific betrayal of those of us who believed in her when she said:

"I will not support an increase in the gas tax."

and

"I will not support increases in tab fees."

All to get elected. 

Lesson for the RINO Establishment: Trump doubles poll lead.

Look:  this is wayyyyyy early in the process.  But it would seem that RINO efforts to crown Jeb Bush as the next GOP loser are starting to fall apart.

At the end of the day, as much as the Establishment would love Trump to get out after his McCain remarks, that's not going to happen.  Nor should it.  And I don't say that as a Trump supporter, but I could become one if the rest of the field keeps playing the role of butthurt little girls when what the GOP needs is someone... more than a single someone... who is willing to get into a knock down, drag out fist fight for this job instead of being, yet again, another RINO wimp.

Many of the GOP pussies were "demanding" things from Trump because he slapped McCain around.  Well, so what?

McCain hasn't been all that to this government.

Yes, he served.  Yes, he's shown some balls.  But not in the last 3 decades.

Trump continues to tap into the growing GOP voter anger towards a do-nothing GOP majority that talked a great game... but which hasn't done crap since they won.

The Establishment tells us we're supposed to be pissed off at what Trump said about McCain as if that overshadows everything else he's saying... things that the GOP has been ignoring... whining about... or even helping Obama accomplish?
I don't think so.

Here's the thing: for me, my top priorities are (in no particular order):

Securing the borders.
Removing illegal aliens.
Ending the destination resort aspect drawing illegals here like magnets.
Eliminating sanctuary anything.
Forcing the Mexican government to provide effective border security on their side.

Eliminating ISIS and al Qaida.
Eliminating Iran as a nuclear threat.
Removing Russia from eastern Europe.                                                                       Rolling China out of the South China Sea.

Balancing the budget.

Eliminating the VA backlog... like that moron Obama promised back in 08.

Making sure that veterans receive their medical treatment in a timely manner, even if that means allowing treatment outside the VA system.

Stop charging veterans for the free medical care they were promised for life as a condition of enlistment.

Restoring the military back to 2008 levels in personnel.
Including women in draft registration.
Requiring all women to pass the male PT test.
Continuing to use the A10.
Get women out of combat.
Knock off the social engineering crap that is far too expensive and disruptive to implement.

These are the kinds of things I want the GOP generally and the presidential candidate to focus on particularly.

Otherwise, they can drop dead.

As I've repeatedly stated, I will never vote for a label or a "settle for" candidate again.

Meanwhile, instead of bitching and moaning at and about Trump, these wimps need to get off their collective asses and begin to emulate him.  Because ignoring these issues will get you nothing... including getting you elected.

The polls here don't lie.  And Trump continues to suck all of the oxygen out of the political room because he's talking about the things we WANT to be talked about.

And the GOP had BETTER listen.